A longish time ago I ran across the statement that “97% of Scientists agree that human caused global warming is real”. Something like that.
When I first read it, I laughed out loud assuming it was someone’s idea of a joke. But I was, I admit it, wrong. It was the then latest salvo of the PR Barrage coming from the IPCC and other activists around the globe. It seems that they thought they would launch their PR Blitz using a logical fallacy and proceed from there.
Since that point in time I have come to the conclusion that the whole concept of “anthropomorphic climate change” is a fantasy. It is a fantasy being used as a battering ram to force unwanted and viciously totalitarian SOCIAL change.
Having stated my controversy up front please do me a favor and read why I have come to this conclusion.
I mentioned my initial reaction about the “97% agree”. I am a fan of the study of logical fallacies. That statement about “97% of Scientists agree that…” is a logical fallacy that is called The Argument from Numbers (Argumentum ad Populum). It is the misconception that because many believe something it must be correct. I once saw this lampooned hilariously on a usenet Newsgroup called alt.talk.origins as;
“Eat Dung! One billion flies cannot be wrong”.
The assertion (argument) is ridiculous even at first blush – for a number of reasons. Science does not run on consensus – it runs on proof. It runs on theory, experiment and analysis and review. Most scientists supported the aether theory of what exists out in space which was then disproved by the Micelson-Morley experiments. The majority were wrong. Period. And once the work of Michelson and Morley was reviewed, tested and accepted then the scientific view of the cosmos changed.
It is ludicrous at second blush too – the idea that 97% of scientists would agree on anything as nebulous as “anthopomorphic climate change” could only be stated seriously by a PR person because Scientists don’t do things that way.
Later investigation as to where the phrase came from revealed that it was a survey sent out to thousands of scientists who worked or had been associated with environmentalism or climate studies or meteorology and it was the count of those few responses that they got to the survey that came up with 97% of the responses agreed … So if it were to be truthfully stated it should have said “97% of Scientists who believe in anthropomorphic climate change agree that it is real” which lacks the same panache and punch of the original, but false, assertion.
So my first encounter with the Warmist Agenda Keepers Organization (WAKO) was not auspicious.
And so I watched with an admittedly somewhat prejudiced eye as the Warmist Jihad got rolling.
Have you ever been involved in an argument with a Warmist Jihadi? They will quite happily bombard you with whatever facts and figures and tables they have been provided with and ask you to “disprove” them. If you try they will ask you what your “training” in Climate Science is – and imply that you are not qualified to comment on such fancy science work which is way out of your league.
Hmm. This is a bit of conundrum – is it not? Unless you, as a citizen and a tax payer, are prepared to go through 6 years of expensive college you are not permitted to pass opinions on anthropomorphic climate change? You are therefore OBLIGED to accept unreservedly, the opinions of your betters? Say it ain’t so, Joe.
It ain’t so.
The data presented is just a statement (or argument as it is referred to in the Fallacy trade). So while the scientific notation might be awe inspiring the way it is being presented may be less so.
It was in this period that I first encountered the word “Denier”. “He/she denies climate change!!” “he/she is just a denier!” “climate change denial!”. This use of a pejorative label to write off opposition is a common tactic within what passes for political discourse these days. It does not deal with objections but instead attempts to stonewall any opposition by just using the dismissive and moving on.
During this period there was a leak from the University of East Anglia. Emails archived at the Climate Research Unit were unearthed and published much to the dismay of the warmist scientists who found their nasty little words and plans put on public display. Their preferences for silencing opposition, to denying publishing to papers that did not forward the Warmist agenda and so on. The release of those emails should have put paid to the warming “juggernaut” but it did not.
Instead it careened on, trying out various messages of doom and woe. Publishing drop dead timelines when things would become irreversible – and then re-wording them when they failed to come to pass. As each modeled prediction failed – they produced more models. And they brought forth probably the weirdest of their arguments. Their coterie of priest-like “believers”.
A portly politician brought forth a DVD. An Inconvenient Truth. The definitive “argument” for Global Warming?
But let us apply the warmist test for validity here.
How well trained is Al Gore in Climate Science?
Well – he doesn’t have any. He went to Harvard and got his degree in “Government”. Reportedly he did not do well in science and maths.
He is a bureaucrat and a Politician. He is the son of a politician and has lived comfortably in the bosom of government largesse for his entire life.
He has been lauded by Bill Nye “The Science Guy”. Again lets us apply the warmist test of validity to his status. How much training does Nye have in Climate Science? Well, er… None. He does have an engineering degree – which puts him well ahead of Al Gore but his training was as a mechanical Engineer not in climate sciences. He is “famous” for communicating about Science. But he is not a climate scientist – so by warming standards he has no cred to argue about it.
Next on the list are the celebrity Priest-Kings of Climate Science. Let’s take Leonardo de Caprio . His qualifications for Climatology? None.
Prince Harry of England. His climate science creds? None. He did, however graduate from the Military Academy of Sandhurst in England.
Judd Apatow – film director who just recently decided to tweet out about how we are literally murdering our children? His qualifications? None.
And finally – the Pièce de résistance – Greta Thunberg. A 16 year old Swedish Schoolgirl without even a basic secondary education. According to her mother’s writing Greta has one qualification – she can “see” carbon dioxide.
“Greta is one of the few people who can recognize our carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how greenhouse gases flow from our chimneys, rise to the sky through the wind and turn our atmosphere into a gigantic, invisible heap of waste.”
Other than that her top qualification seems to be her wholesale fear.
According to the Warmist Jihad Handbook – in order to criticize or discuss Climate Change you need to be a climate Scientist. But NONE of these people have any qualifications to do that. Yet the press regularly and forcefully publishes their opinions as if they were somehow more than just gullible drivel.
And to show their commitment to the cause – their wholesale belief in how bad CO2 and emissions are we have Al Gore who has made tens of millions of dollars from exploiting the Global warming Jihad. He owns two large properties on in Montecito CA which is 6,000 square feet and one in Tennessee which is 10,000 square feet. That is one hell of a “footprint” for someone who claims to be all over this Global warming thing. Considering that these two properties are for 2 adults… Obviously being a Priest-King of the Warmist Jihad requires a lot of room.
Or Leonardo de Caprio who is so important to the Jihad that he must take private jets where e’er he goeth. Wafted, presumably by warm winds while the jets spill tons of CO2 per hour – just for him.
Prince Harry – another of the private jet fliers, a man with a modest footprint of an estate in the Cotswolds and house in London all paid for by the taxpayers of the UK. Thank God the man is willing to lecture us mortals on a subject he knows nothing about.
Greta Thunberg at least appears to go for the whole no carbon thing. Planning to sail across the Atlantic in a racing yacht, built of – carbon fiber. Can’t make this stuff up.
And there we have it – ignorant, uneducated people advocating wholesale social change for OTHERS while busily indulging themselves in what they claim to oppose.
Now you may begin to understand why I think this whole thing is a total crock.
Google – the incredibly “woke” mega-corporation that consumes more electrical power than many nations is hosting a quiet enclave or get-together in an environmentally friendly location in Sicily (a renowned place world wide for its ecological progress and quiet understated luxury and helicopter pad)
The rich who wish to appear “woke” and “meaningful” – like Prince Harry, or DiCaprio, or Obama are arriving in squadrons of private jets (last count 114) and a few private mega yachts. Theoretically they could establish air speriority and could launch an amphibious assault on any small nation that dares use anything more intensive than dung for cooking fires. But out of sheer compassion and empathy they would refrain, I guess.
So, while the woke, well heeled wankers of the world are waffling, can we, the great unwashed, expect far seeing policies and initiatives for the woke and condemnation for the polluters of the world? How will they deal with the villains? What will they be saying?
One would expect to see some high powered criticism of those who are failing to make the grade, for those who are not following the diktats of the woke and the powerful.
Quick Quiz for those in the know;
Which country has the worlds highest output of CO2?
Which country dumps the most plastic in the world’s oceans?
Which Country and it’s leader comes in for the most criticism from the eco fruit loops?
Well if you listen to the woke there is no doubt, at all, about who is responsible for all the major issues. The USA? Right? And its President Donald Trump? Or the Trump Administration – amiright?
Hmmm. So the rich people in their private jets and super yachts meeting at a super expensive resort in Sicily are going to be brave and speak against…
Well who should they speak out against?
The number one producer of CO2 in the world is …. China. Over twice as much CO2 as the USA. And climbing. And aiming to climb higher even more.
The number one dumper of plastic into the world’s oceans? … why… China. 17 times as much as the USA. In fact the USA is not even in the top five countries for dumping plastic into the ocean.
Yet the only campaigns we hear about are – against plastic straws in the USA??? Why the effort to reduce such a meaningless non-event from the cafes, diners and restaurants in the USA? It is not even a blip on the screen? Why not proitest the countries that are doing the wort of the dumping?
Why are they not pushing to Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against China? That nation and that regime are a danger to the world. Instead what we see are leftists screaming about Boycotting Israel, who are the only democracy in the middle east that actually cares and protects minorities, they waffle on about banning plastic straws and they elevate an uneducated Swedish schoolgirl to some sort of virtue signaling guru status.
Seriously – if you every saw this as the plot in a movie you would gag on your popcorn.
Bill de Blasio, a soi-disant “Communist” has decided to appoint hisself as All-High Grand Turtle of New York City.
He has decided that he is now empowered to instruct private individuals as to what setting their thermostats must be set to in buildings that De Blasio does not own, control or manage.
It would appear that he is suffering from the next level of Leftist Early Onset Dementia – he is imagining that he merely needs to formulate and promulgate the thought and his very utterance carries the weight of just law.
‘Tis a mental disorder that appeals much to the Leftist Liberal mindset. The idea that whatever ridiculous idea occurs to them – transgender pronouns, race quotas, gender identity, carbon taxes, climate disasters, soda taxes should automatically gain the full force of law and that all who oppose governance by fanciful fascistic edict should be punished forthwith.
There is no room or allowance for debate – if the utterance comes from an approved leftist mouthpiece it is to be agreed with and enacted and woe betide any who speak out against it.
We see the streets of Portland being given over to the rule of totalitarian thugs – by the fiat of the “Mayor”. We see the public streets of San Francisco being laden with turds from the great unwashed homeless masses seething around the streets of one of the richest cities in the USA. In Los Angeles , home of Hollywood and the Super Woke celebrity democrat parties, fundraisers and child molester admirers people camp on the sidewalks.
Seeing the disgusting pictures of an independent journalist attacked by Antifa in Portland at the weekend and, given the total lack of outrage from the leftist mainstream media, I think it is time to mount a campaign of Civilized Obedience.
Here’s my take on this – somehow it has become fashionable to speak of Civil Disobedience as if the phrase itself lends an aura of saintly intent to the activity being described.
But, of course, those who push it these days seem to forget that Gandhi and MLK Jr were advocating for NON-VIOLENT passive resistance to laws they felt were discriminatory in an effort to change them. They were not advocating violent threats and actions to force people to change. The exact opposite in fact.
In Portland this weekend a journalist named Andy Ngo who writes and contributes to Quillete, a Libertarian leaning publication, was attacked in the street by Antifa thugs while covering their activities. He ended up in the Emergency Room. There appears to be no coordinated activity to round up street protesters who indulge in illegal activities – not sure why the response to this is so tepid and wonder if the city government is surprised that being nice and polite does not seem to be handling the issue very well.
The right to protest and demonstrate in public is, from my view, sacrosanct. However no-one has a “right” to prevent others from doing the same thing. So if one group wishes to demonstrate in one area then I do believe the government has the duty to allow them to do so and to protect their right to do so. Should some other group wish to protest and announce an opposing view they should certainly be afforded the chance to do so – at a different location, or if the location is key – at a different time or day.
It is up to law enforcement to actually apply the laws of the land, If someone threatens another with violence they should be arrested and charged. In short I think that in Public discourse the police should be executing a “broken windows” strategy. Every infraction should be acted upon. Someone stands in the street and obstructs traffic – arrest, charge. Someone throws something at someone else – arrest, charge. Milkshake or brick – arrest and charge. Someone spits on someone – arrest and charge. Make sure the local courts are set to deal with the infractions swiftly. No “plea deals” that involve expungement of records. Not advocating for severe punishments – fines can be relatively small just to cover the expenses of policing and jailing and the court. But the offenses should be on the record. And stay there.
If this sounds like a lot of effort – yes it is – but I think it is a far better alternative than allowing things to deteriorate with ever increasing episodes of violence
Confession, or transparency declaration or personal bias alert. One of my jobs in the early part of my working life was on Fishing Trawlers out of Lowestoft in England. For nearly two years I worked in the North Sea and North Atlantic as a second engineer for East Coast Fisheries and I saw a lot of fish and endured some of the worst working conditions I ever experienced. Would not change that experience for anything.
I wish to discuss one of the greatest ecological disasters of our times. The loss of an entire inland sea – The Aral Sea. And what caused it.
I also wish to point out the total uselessness of the IPCC and all the “climatologists” throughout the world who seem all consumed with talking about things that may or may not happen in the far future but who lack any sort of credibility in handling issues in the here and the now.
Just before 1960 The Central government of the USSR decided that the waters of two major rivers, The Amu Darya and the Syr Darya would be diverted for agricultural irrigation.
The Aral Sea was a large, salt water lake. It lay between Kazakhstan in the north and Uzbekistan in the south. It was approximately 270 miles north to south and 180 miles from east to west. As those figures indicate it was a substantial body of water, all the more remarkable because it was located in a desert type terrain.
The local rainfall was nowhere near enough to replenish what the Sea lost in evaporation each year. Its main sources of supply were the two large rivers.
It had a large and productive fishing industry on its shores, big villages and towns. Hence my empathy for those that lived and made their businesses and their families there.
When the Soviet planners decided to create agriculture where it did not belong it decided to irrigate using the waters of the two rivers. One of the crops they picked was one crop that required copious amounts of water – cotton. The other was mainly wheat. That decision basically turned off the spigot that was keeping the Aral sea in existence and, from 1960 onward it started to evaporate – to dry up and become an alkali desert.
Here is a graphic from Britannica.com that shows the incredibly shrinking of this huge resource.
Once the shrinking began there followed a cascade of predictable bad effects – the salinity of the sea exploded killing off the copious fish stocks that existed for millennia. As the sea bed started to be exposed the crystallized salts and alkalis and remnants of large amounts of fertilizer started to be blown in the dry winds causing health problems in the surrounding countries. Thousands were thrown out of work, businesses vanished.
There have been attempts to save the Sea, an effort and a dam in the northern small portion that is left seems to have kept that part of the lake in place but negotiations between countries on water usage got nowhere and as time has gone on the chances of reviving this once magnificent resource grow smaller and smaller.
Lest we lose track of something here – this is not something that is a “result of climate change” it is a result of centralized thinking causing issues that RESULT in changing the local climate. And, it would appear, that for all the hot air about “handling climate change” the IPCC and the hundreds of thousands of people who are making a living with the subject of climate change cannot even manage to get five local national governments together to come up with a realistic and workable solution to a “relatively simple” ecological and climatalogical problem. They can , however release multiple scaremongering reports, they can hold massive conferences at which nothing is fixed or decided, they can talk, pass laws, increase taxes – and none of it handles anything.
How about we demand that they actually prove that something can be done and done successfully before we start giving them the keys to the kingdom ad its treasury?
These are the people who claim to be able to handle things 100 years in the future!!
Think about it for a moment. Demand proof, demand accountability.
Collective guilt is a wonderful gift and tool for – collectivists. It is why they LOVE to use it.
The best one they have come up with is “White privilege”. Seriously, this is their best effort. You can hear it trumpeted by the likes of Kamala Harris – an American citizen with PhD parents with great jobs and who went to school (up through high school) for most of her life in Quebec, Canada. Hardly the resume of a downtrodden mixed race child.
We can compare her to perhaps the children of miners in Kentucky and West Virginia who, for the most part, are white. And who attended local schools in their districts where their parents lived and went to work. Perhaps we could examine the privilege of J.D. Vance who wrote Hillbilly Elegy and who did actually attend college (presumably getting there thanks to his whiteness and all)? There are a LOT of “under privileged” people in the world and they run the gamut of skin color from black through yellow and brown along to pasty white. All of us – and I include myself – were children of parents where our birth gave us no significant leg up or position of power or influence.
Tucker Carlson just recently exposed the “politician privilege” that accrues to the children of political leaders when it comes to access to the nations top schools. The “Ivy League” schools seem to find un-noticed rich deposits of intelligence in the offspring of the political elite. Most people have to have unbelievably high scores on the SAT and groveling essays of why they should go to Yale, Harvard, Brown or Cornell etc. They have to submit all their extra curricular activities and advanced placements and volunteer work – and they may, just may, get in. But , on the other hand if you are the daughter of Hillary and Bill Clinton none of that appears to matter. Or, if your dad is Governor of the State of New York then, no matter your inarticulateness you are a shoo in.
It’s not that Chelsea or Chris or Al Gore’s 4 kids are bad people – I am not saying that they are. But they do not seem to measure up to the candidates who are scrambling for those few placements that are supposed to show how the Ivy League is some sort of super-meritocracy. Chris Cuomo for example looks like he might have excelled in a a small metro college in New York.
Where are the cries from the other politicians about this obvious “privilege”? Bupkis.
IN the meantime – children of “privilege” such as Kamala Harris get to lecture people who really did have to come up the hard way – about THEIR privilege.
I have been watching the various performances of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez since she succeeded in getting elected to the US House of Representatives last year. She is the youngest woman ever to have been elected to Congress, she is 29 years old, has a degree from Boston University with a degree in International Relations and Economics. Her victory in the primary for the Democrat Party “owned” seat was well executed and upset an established Democrat apparatchik named Joe Crowley – a 10 term incumbent. That was the real victory given that incumbents running in House races have a winning percentage at around 95% for re-election. Once selected Ms Ocasio-Cortez was a shoo in.
How did she do it? How did she move from being a bartender to the candidate for a congressional seat with no prior ramp up in local politics? Normally people take on local races – school board, library board, city council and so on. This enables them to build a network, put together a team of trusted people find out who can be trusted to help in further campaigns. It’s a way to gain credibility and also, by contributing to someone else, a way to obligate them to support you.
So how did a n00b with no experience in political vote getting or office seeking suddenly turn up in the Bronx and unseat a 10 term incumbent?
Well the story is suitably vague if one listens to Miss Ocasio-Cortez she and a few friends got together, put a campaign in gear and went around talking to people. Though that is the idyllic view we have of politics it is not how it works.
What happened was that a hardcore leftist organization named Justice Democrats came up with a strategy to start forcing the Democrat Party further left. Justice Democrats (you have to marvel at the bombastic name which carefully avoids the real aim – Injustice Socialist) did a very good job for their first run. They picked 26 candidates for various seats and won 6. You may recognize a couple of the names – along with Ms Cortex Ms Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are the three best known ones.
All these candidates were picked by the organization (PAC)Justice Democrats.
Knowing just that helps explain why these three are always “supporting” each other. Ms Tlaib gets attacked for her anti semitic utterances and Ms Ocasio-Cortez is right there deflecting the attacks. The Democrat Party starts a motion to admonish Ms Talib for her antisemitism and thanks to the lobbying of the hard left it is watered down to the point of being meaningless.
Ms Ocasio Cortez appears to have the role of emoting and getting attention for positions that Justice Democrats wish to use to garner support for their “brand”.
Take the Green New Deal – something that sprung half baked from a couple of meetings with the highly emotional “we only have 12 years”. Delivered with big eyes and emotion it garnered a lot of press. It provided a whole bunch of press – it played into an already fertile field of waffle and the hard left got to test drive a few talking points to find which worked and which did not have legs.
Then came the next item – the flood of illegal immigrants hitting the USA attempting to overwhelm our borders. The funding for the “caravans” has been traced to various activist organizations and now we find Ms Ocasio-Cortez taking photos of herself beong emotional outside parking lots, getting emotional with the Border Patrol and emotionally sling around accusations. Note the over use of the descriptive “emotion”.
Ms Ocasio-Cortez actually voted against a bill to give funding to help out with the crisis at the border. As did her buddies Ms Omar and Ms Tlaib.
So we have this new congresswoman with no experience using her good looks and shrill voice to drum up press – but advancing no solutions and not supporting legislation to help address the issues she is complaining about.
She did not come into congress with a fully formed idea of what she wanted or believed in.
It looks to me that Ms Ocasio-Cortez gets her performance orders from the Justice Democrat leadership (a couple of whom are on her “staff”) and like a true performing seal she is pushed out on the stage to make a stir, attract attention and provide information and feedback to the real brains who put her there in the first place. She does not advance policy she does not work on finding solutions – he job is Agit-Prop.
The theater of the absurd has descended upon Washington DC
I have always been of the opinion that abortion is a subject between a patient and her GP. I personally find the idea abhorrent but I have always thought that it is like any medical procedure – sometimes it is necessary. I am not judging why it would be found necessary – just that I agree that it should be legal and should be an option that any person can freely discuss with her MD.
That does not mean that I support the slavish zeal of Planned Parenthood whom I consider to be a racist organization. I think the subject of “abortion” has long ago been submerged in the political activism around it.
My first misgiving was reading that Planned Parenthood had appealed a Texas law that stated that people performing the abortion procedure had to have admitting rights to the local hospital – something which is required for all outpatient facilities that perform medical procedures. I still do not understand the opposition to the law. I understand that pro-choice people think that it is being pushed and enacted by pro-life campaigners. But my point is – it may well be true that it is a law being championed by people who are pro-life – but SO WHAT? The idea of the law strikes me as being sound clinics that perform abortions should have to adhere to the standards of out-patient clinics that perform procedures. Period. What is wrong with that?
Gosnell was, or should have been, a clarion call to SUPPORTERS of planned parenthood that they do not supervise their clinics properly – or that there are “gaps” that they need to address.
All of this made me uneasy.
But what just floored me was the public support given by legislators in the State of New York cheering on the idea that babies that SURVIVE the abortion attempt should be allowed to die. They should be put to one side and just left to die.
I cannot get past this. I cannot get past the picture of those people cheering this. I cannot understand how this is not, at the very least, manslaughter or infanticide. It is unforgivable.
I have made mockery of Elizabeth Warren for her egregious hijacking of a mythical Native American ancestry in order to help her along in her career. I think she thoroughly deserves to be mocked for it and also for her trying to slither her way out of it. But I find there is a deeper and much darker side underneath all this.
That she publicly, in print characterized herself as Cherokee is beyond doubt.
It’s a small thing of course – but this is someone who later went on to Harvard where they were happy to claim her as a Native American Professor of Law
Harvard Crimson October 22nd 1996
“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, [spokesperson Mike] Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American,”
Warren denied ever seeing that reference or the listing of her in a Harvard Faculty list as a woman of color. No way to prove that she did actually see it – but she would be the first politician in the history of mankind who did not avidly lap up every positive press mention of his or herself.
But, leaving that to one side. There is no doubt she has identified herself in public as being of Cherokee Ancestry and she says that she claimed that because of family folk lore about her heritage. And you know what? I can actually believe that – being told something interesting about your heritage when you are young and that appealed to your sense of identity would definitely cause you to seek additional affirmation of that. It even has a name – confirmation bias.
So I am not, in this article, going to claim that she was acting out of malice or any sort of nefarious motive like that. I could concede that she honestly thought she had Cherokee ancestry and didn’t mind encouraging the idea.
But – of course there is a but – if she held an honest belief of Cherokee ancestry what did she do to benefit the tribe that she felt she belonged to?
There is no doubt that the Native American community as a whole could have used a Harvard Law Professor publicly helping them out. Offering advice and legal opinion, willing to lead a team of lawyers and volunteers to tackle things like the BIA mismanagement of the trust set up for the tribes that has been a massive bone of contention for a very long time.
There were and are many opportunities that Professor Warren could have taken on to have provided service to a tribe and an organization that she had claimed to be a part of. She took none of them.
That she gained advantage from her claim – even if only in beneficial commentary in print – is beyond doubt.
That she did nothing to help the people she used is also beyond doubt.
My own opinion is that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be an exploiter and an abuser of an unearned “privilege”. Sorry, I find this a lot more disgusting than just the false claiming accusation.
Be warned Democrats – she will not feel obliged to help you. She did not bother to help people who really could have used it even while she was claiming to be one of them.