Posted tagged ‘global warming’

Humor? | Yes Prime Minister Global Warming etc Part 2

June 25, 2017

Yes Prime Minister Global Warming etc Part 2Aris Motas via Vimco, Two years ago

 

Confessions of a Climate Change ‘Denier’

March 21, 2017

Confessions of a Climate Change ‘Denier’, Spectator, Thomas W. Smith, March 17, 2017

It has always been worrisome to me that every so-called solution to global warming subverts rather than enhances human freedom and advances the power of the state to regulate energy, industrial activity, and individual behavior. That seems to me, a denier, or whatever term you want to use, a potentially greater threat to the future of human welfare than even climate change. Václav Klaus, the former president of the Czech Republic, made this same point when he declared: “What is at risk is not the climate but freedom.”

****************************

A few days ago I had a conversation with a very smart university professor of history and somehow the climate change subject came up. Almost instantly he responded to my thoughts by saying: “You must be one of those deniers who rejects the science consensus.”

This is the new form of intellectual bullying and it’s intentionally designed is to stop the conversation not advance it. In the academies it is a technique to close off scientific inquiry.

When the liberals talk of ‎consensus, what consensus are they talking about?  Of whom? About what? Here is John Kay of the‎ Financial Times on the so-called consensus:

Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think…. The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.”

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, has noted that too many environmentalists “ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.”

Then he adds: “… there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.… The consensus was reached before the research was even begun…”

Kay and Lindzen are not alone. In an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister, 60 scientists urged caution when it comes to any policy with regard to climate:

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formation.… There is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change.… “Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural noise.

Patrick Moore, a Ph.D. in ecology, is a fallen-away founder of Greenpeace. The following is from his 2015 lecture, “Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?”

There is no definite scientific proof, through real-world observation that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming in the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age.… The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in a scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.”

The world’s top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is hopelessly conflicted by its makeup and its mandate from the United Nations. It is required only to focus on “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the atmosphere, and which is in addition to natural climate variability.” So if the IPCC found that climate change was not being affected by human alteration of the atmosphere or that it is not “dangerous,” there would be no need for it to exist. It is virtually mandated to find on the side of apocalypse.

The IPCC states that it is “extremely likely” that human emissions have been the dominant cause of global warming “since the mid-20th century,” that is since 1950. It claims that “extremely” means 95% certain, even though the number 95 was simply plucked from the air like an act of magic. And “likely” is not a scientific word but rather indicative of a judgment, another word for opinion.

“Perpetual repetition.” “Unqualified environmental groups.” “Sensational headlines.” This is what mass movements are all about. From his book, The True Believer, here is Eric Hoffer on mass movements:

Hatred is the most assessable and comprehensive of all the unifying agents.… Mass movements can rise and spread without the belief in God but never without the belief in evil.

By the way, isn’t this what the left accuses the Trump movement to be all about?

Hoffer then goes on to cite the historian F.A. Voigt’s account of a Japanese mission to Berlin in 1932 to study the National Socialist Movement. Voigt asked a member of the mission what he thought. He replied, “It is magnificent. I wish we could have something like it in Japan, only we can’t, because we haven’t got any Jews.” This brought a bit of clarity as to why the mass movement, rather brilliantly, wants to label those of us who have questions as “deniers.”

There are two things necessary for a mass movement to succeed: true believers and a well-defined enemy. The enemy of the climate change mass movement is fossil fuels and the Industrial Age, with the “deniers” being the enablers of planetary destruction.

In the past, the term “denier” has been associated with that extreme group who denies the existence of the horrible, tragic historical fact, the Holocaust. Many climate change true believers want the public to put anyone who questions or disagrees with climate change projections in the same category as the Holocaust deniers. But one is a fact, the other a contested projection. Nevertheless, they have been quite successful.

Here is one of the definitions of “denier” found on the Internet: “a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of the scientific or historical evidence: a prominent denier of global warming.”

Here is Hoffer’s warning on the role of the true believer: “where mass movements can either persuade or coerce, it usually chooses the latter.”

Something we are seeing in spades.

The last paragraph of Friedrich Hayek’s 1974 Nobel Prize address, The Pretense of Knowledge, puts the climate change mass movement and its true believers into frightening perspective:

There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, “dizzy with success,” to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.

It has always been worrisome to me that every so-called solution to global warming subverts rather than enhances human freedom and advances the power of the state to regulate energy, industrial activity, and individual behavior. That seems to me, a denier, or whatever term you want to use, a potentially greater threat to the future of human welfare than even climate change. Václav Klaus, the former president of the Czech Republic, made this same point when he declared: “What is at risk is not the climate but freedom.”

Humor | To Get Obama’s Attention, ISIS Renames Self, ‘Global Warming’

December 8, 2015

To Get Obama’s Attention, ISIS Renames Self, ‘Global Warming’ The Jewish Press, December 8, 2015

New ISIS flagThe proposed new ISIS flag (courtesy NASA).

{Originally posted to website PreOccupied Territory, the “Island of Irony” in the Middle East}

Raqqa, December 6 – After years of attempting to directly engage with what it calls the Great Satan in a fateful, apocalyptic showdown, the Islamic State intends to rectify its failure to date to provoke the US into all-out warfare by renaming itself Global Warming in order to convince US President Barack Obama that it must be confronted seriously.

Self-proclaimed Caliph of the Islamic State Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced today that the long-sought confrontation with the infidel West can only happen if the Western leadership – at its head the American president – joins the battle. A series of televised hostage executions accomplished little in that regard, and the organization began resorting to attacks on Western targets, either directly or by encouraging local terrorism initiatives. Following last week’s deadly attack in San Bernardino, California, and Obama’s failure to name Islamic terrorism specifically as the scourge to combat, al-Baghdadi said he and his henchmen realized a rebranding was in order, with the aim of casting ISIS in the role of what the Obama administration does see as an imminent threat worth fighting: climate change.

“It is not enough that we traffic in fossil fuels to power our operations,” explained the ISIS leader in a recorded video message. “It is not enough that our signature form of transportation is a fleet of gas-guzzling pickup trucks. We must do more to drive home the urgency with which this confrontation must take place if the End of Days is to come about in our lifetimes.”

“Therefore,” continued al-Baghdadi, “Western angst over whether to call us by our Arabic acronym, or by some bastardized translation, will soon be at an end, for we will take on the name of the force their leadership apparently fears most: global warming. They will have no choice but to fight, for this force represents everything they oppose.”

Baghdadi conceded that it was possible Obama himself would shrink from the confrontation, as he has so far failed to stand up to Putin, Khamenei, and Assad, but that the specter of global warming would terrify others into forcing the president’s hand. “It is their misplaced concern for humanity that will be their weakness,” predicted the leader.

Analysts praised the rhetorical move. “It’s nothing short of brilliant,” gushed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. “I have so many misapplied, overwrought metaphors I could apply here, but let’s just say this is Baghdadi taking the fight right to virtual Gettysburg with an exploding tuba. In one stroke, he’s forced the Democrats to choose between their ecological values and their reluctance to fight actual wars properly. On top of that, now that he’s renaming the group Global Warming, continued dithering by the administration will open it to charges of Global Warming denial, which is about as disgraceful an act a left-wing figure can admit, other than support for Israel.”

The pope’s misguided defense of Islam

September 24, 2015

The pope’s misguided defense of Islam, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, September 24, 2015

pope_francis_in_march_2013

 

The Pope could have used his forum in Congress to call attention to the plight of Christians.

Unlike Communist Cuba, America hasn’t seized and nationalized Catholic churches and schools. It hasn’t locked up Catholic clergy or installed surveillance equipment in their homes. It hasn’t denounced the Catholic church as “exploiters” and “fascists”. And yet Pope Francis, who had few criticisms of Cuba, came to Congress to denounce the collision between Americans and Indians, and to urge the United States to take in illegal aliens without regard for the law.

There’s a condemnation of the death penalty. Never mind that in the US, the death penalty is used after extensive appeals against some of the worst monsters imaginable, unlike Cuba, where it was used to massacre political opponents of the Castro crime family. And condemnations of selling weapons. Much of this is couched in vague language, but it’s still a sharp contrast from the visit to Cuba.

The Pope even threw in a backhanded defense of Islam…

Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind…

But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners.

No religion is technically immune from anything if you mean that some members of it might misbehave. But that’s misleading language that tries to avoid the reality by setting up a strawman.

No country is immune from violating human rights, but there’s a big difference between David Cameron and Adolf Hitler. There’s also a huge difference between most religions and Islam when it comes to “violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities” committed in the name of religion. Especially when we focus in on the contrast between Western religions in the free world… and Islam.

There’s also a simplistic reductionism in reducing unpleasant truths to strawmen. There are clear cases of evil that have to be addressed. To say that does not mean an inability to see anything except black and white.

To say that no religion is immune to brutal atrocities is true and meaningless. We might as well say that no one human being is immune to evil. It doesn’t get us any closer to dealing with the reality of evil people out there.

It’s easy to talk around problems and Islam is the most talked-around problem today. But the plight of Christians in the Middle East deserves more than more ‘talking around’. Instead of elitist lectures, they need a moral authority to forcefully advocate intervention on their behalf by making it clear that they face genocide. And that it’s up to the West to make Christianity in the region sustainable or evacuate its last remnants.

It’s a much more vital issue than Global Warming, which the Pope mentions repeatedly.

The Pope could have used his forum in Congress to call attention to the plight of Christians in the region and demand action. Instead he talked generally about Syrian refugees, most of whom are Muslims.

Advocates are hoping for more.

Now that Pope Francis is in his first day of his two-day visit to Washington, D.C., advocates for persecuted Christians in the Middle East are urging the pontiff to speak out forcefully on their plight in his meeting with President Obama Wednesday and in his historic address to Congress the following day.

“I’m hoping the Pope points out that thousands of Christians are persecuted, denied their fundamental rights, and killed because of their faith [in the Middle East],” George Marlin, chairman of Aid to the Church in Need USA, told me.

Marlin, who has written a much-praised book on the subject of Christian persecution in the Middle East, emphasized that “someone has to bang pots and pans on this issue. The Administration is not doing it. The national media is not doing it. If the Pope brings this up, it makes front-page news worldwide.”

“If Pope Francis calls it genocide before Congress, there will be a moral clarity added to this issue and it will bring a new ray of hope to persecuted Christians,” said Taimoorazy, herself a refugees from Iran who came to the U.S. in 1991, “The whole world will now be paying attention.”

In underscoring why the Pope must use the word “genocide,” she cited the fact that the Assyrian Christian population in the Middle East was 1.6 million prior to 2003 and “now we only have 300,000.”

I suppose it’s not as important as the critiques of capitalism and Global Warming and illegal aliens and the death penalty.

Defense Department fights global warming with courage and determination

October 16, 2014

Defense Department fights global warming with courage and determination, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 16, 2014

It’s the greatest threat of all time. Aside from Ebola, the DUH DOD has little else to do. According to the Daily Pest Beast, nurses fight Ebola more bravely than members of our military, so only 4,000 of our bravest and best boots on the ground are being ordered to Africa to fight it. Although the (non-Islamic) Islamic State is a bit of a nuisance now that Al-Qaeda is on the run, whatever we say or do about it might defame Islam. Since that would be “as bad as rape,” we must not do it.

Fantasy Island Obama

We have much to learn from Secretary Kerry, even beyond the horrors of man-caused climate change, which has not manifested itself during the past eighteen years or so but might someday. Or might not. For example, Kerry recently called on his vast wisdom to tell us that defaming Islam is as bad as rape. It’s a bit confusing, but there are probably two possibilities: (1) he was defending the Religion of Beheading, Rape, Pillage, Genocide, Sharia Law and Slaughter in General Peace yet again, or (2) he was trying to diminish “rape” and “microaggression” so that feminists would focus more on highlighting all of the horrors of the Republican War on Women with equal vigor and harshness.

In the recent past, our fair, honest and objective news media constantly researched and reported stuff with extraordinary competence, if not honesty. Surely, by now they have taken Andrew Klavan’s advice and become less stupid and corrupt.

Since they still consistently tell us that most Muslims are “moderate” and merely engage is a bit of normal workplace violence now and then, we don’t have to worry about them despite this hatefully Islamophobic and therefore racist nonsense:

Please see also, In Search of the ‘Moderate Islamists’.

Modeate Muslim

As all right left thinking people know, here is no valid reason why the truly moderate Islamic Republic of Iran should not have nuclear weapons. It tells us, repeatedly, that it neither has nor wants them and, in any event, won’t use them unless it wants to. Accordingly, we and the rest of P5+1 under Obama’s corrageous leadership will say, “OK that’s cool.”

Probably, most Islamists are harmless fruitcakes and we should try to get along better. We just need to try harder, that’s all.