# New Brazilian Foreign Minister: Climate Change is a Plot by Cultural Marxists

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro (left) and Foreign MInister Ernesto Araújo. President By Alan Santos/PR – https://www.flickr.com/photos/micheltemer/45044560194/, CC BY 2.0, Link. Foreign minister by Por Fonte, Conteúdo restrito, Hiperligação

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The new right wing Brazilian government is demonstrating they have no fear of shooting green leftist sacred cows.

Brazil’s new foreign minister believes climate change is a Marxist plot

Ernesto Araújo has called climate science ‘dogma’ and bemoaned the ‘criminalisation’ of red meat, oil and heterosexual sex

Jonathan Watts Global environment editor
Fri 16 Nov 2018 04.13 AEDT

Brazil’s president-elect Jair Bolsonaro has chosen a new foreign minister who believes climate change is part of a plot by “cultural Marxists” to stifle western economies and promote the growth of China.

Ernesto Araújo – until recently a mid-ranking official who blogs about the “criminalisation” of red meat, oil and heterosexual sex – will become the top diplomat of South America’s biggest nation, representing 200 million people and the greatest and most biodiverse forest on Earth, the Amazon.

His appointment, confirmed by Bolsonaro on Wednesday, is likely to send a chill through the global climate movement.

Brazil was where the international community first came together in 1992 to discuss reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Its diplomats have played a crucial role in bridging the gap between rich and poor nations, particularly during the forging of the Paris agreement in 2015.

But when the new government takes power in January, the foreign ministry that leads that work will be headed by a man who claims climate science is merely “dogma”.

In his blog, Araújo states his goal is to “help Brazil and the world liberate themselves from globalist ideology”, which he sees as anti-Christian.

The right wing Jair Bolsonaro government was elected after a previous green left wing president was jailed for 12 years over contract fraud, a huge scandal involving theft of vast sums of money from the state owned oil company.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro survived an assassination attempt during the campaign which almost claimed his life. He continued to run the campaign from his hospital bed – a level of determination which many believed helped cement his victory.

Naturally President Bolsonaro’s opponents are flinging the usual slurs – racist, dictator, anything else they can think of. But this time it isn’t working.

This all seems very familiar somehow.

One interesting thing I noticed, Google Translate doesn’t seem to work on Ernesto Araújo’s blog, at least when I try it. I was hoping to obtain a translated copy of the original statement about cultural marxism. If anyone speaks Brazilian Portuguese please post a translation in comments if you can find it.

Bolsonaro said before the election that he intends to stay in the Paris Agreement, for now – though I suspect it may be a short stay.

## 117 thoughts on “New Brazilian Foreign Minister: Climate Change is a Plot by Cultural Marxists”

1. Bryan A says:

While I’m not so sure the Science is Dogma or that Climate Change itself is a Marxist Plot, The Climate IS Changing (it always has and always will). Blind faith in the Climate Models to tell the truth of the future climatic state given any scenario IS Dogma…AND while it isn’t a Marxist Plot, it IS the Marxist/Socialist agenda that is in charge of the Activism related to it and likely responsible for the Media’s apparent bias in both reporting (MSM) and in Academic Journal production

• Joel Snider says:

There is no doubt, however, that the issue has been hijacked by leftists who operate under Marxist mechanics.

• Bryan A says:

Plos 42

• Moa says:

What would it take to convince you, Bryan ?

Would their own words do it ?
http://green-agenda.com

They don’t care about the science. They care about their globalist agenda, which they call “the right thing to do”, and the science is merely camouflage for it.

That’s why reason and satellite data cannot sway them.

That’s why they demand $40 TRILLION of taxpayer money in order to make a 0.03 C change in global temperature. That’s why they don’t talk about observed TCR or ECS or anything like they – they use fascist tactics of shame like “climate denier” (a smear akin to Holocaust Denier) and other anti-rational ploys. So we know the Leftists cannot be swayed by facts. The question is whether you can become awake when you see the statements of the Left that their goal is globalist wealth-redistribution where the tax slaves not only get no say in their fleecing, and are not only deliberately lied to, but they are slandered and demonized if they challenge the lies with facts. Leftists are wrong, and they are evil. The whole premise of using State force against citizens to fleece them for vote bribes is extremely evil. • Bryan A says: Or as Michael Savage is always saying…Liberalism is a Mental Disorder • ThomasJK says: Okay…..Just ask me whether I feel “smeared” when I am called a “climate denier” or whether I feel it is a compliment on my good, sound judgement. It seems to me that there may be implications of some kind, I am unsure what kind, when there will be 20 degree fahrenheit temperatures in New York for Macy’s Thanksgiving day parade this morning. • dan no longer in CA says: If a man is not a socialist at age 20, he has no heart. If he is still a socialist at age 40, he has no brain. Attributed to many, repeated by me. • Rudi says: What makes the WUWT comment section better are comments like yours. We see the many times the Climate Believers are overcome by their emotions and let the truth as they twist it and change it slip out. They want to be accepted by their Marxist buddies although there isn’t a plot specifically regarding that term. We understand these things because you have something never seen but often are told exist by the faith of CAGW: this elusive thing called accurate quotes and evidence. If only we could see this on other sites that see the end is near for, (what is it, the 35th time), in the last 50 years yet again. We’re supposed to just sit back and say, oh sure have most of our income to fight nature again since we’re sure you’re right this time since you say so. • Ivan Kinsman says: This is a completely over-simplified comment if ever I saw one. Who is preaching the end of the world is nigh? Who is asking you to hand over all your income? Why should the desire and willingness to combat climate change equate to Marxism? Are you saying that all those individuals who wanted to tackle the hole in the ozone layer were Marxists – don’t be so absurd. It is becoming harder and harder for US sceptics to convince the mainstream community that AGW is not happening, given the mounting evidence. The UN and NOAA have both published two reports recently warning of the increased risks – and don’t think people are just going to sit back and believe the sceptic argument that it is completely non-existent. That doesn’t wash with the general public. • Patrick MJD says: The only climate change I have seen in my life is moving to the southern hemisphere. • I think there is ample evidence that global warming alarmism is a Marxist initiative. I posted this situation analysis earlier this year: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/06/claim-judge-kavanaughs-adherence-to-rule-of-law-will-impede-climate-action/#comment-2482376 Here is how modern politics works: The far-left is winning, especially in the developing world, where over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela… and North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union countries and many more.. The left gains political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants. It is really no different in the developed world. Get elected by lazy greedy imbeciles, destroy the economy with fake green energy and other crazy policies, and live like kings on top of a ruined economy, looking down on all the peasants. • Joe Crawford says: “…you can’t be kings without lots of peasants.” I like it :<) • Gary Pearse says: Bryan:Marxist plot is close enough for what you describe and besides this is a translation from Portuguese. Google quotes of the Canadian creator of the Stockholm Conference, Rio Summit, UNFCC and IPCC. Maurice Strong, a high school drop out and a genius, advised it was “our” duty to take down western civilization, democracy and free enterprise. The “cause” is so colossal, that one feels a little ridiculous arguing its existence! Actually many climate scientists and unwitting standard bearers, I’m sure, are unaware of what they are participating in, except as an idea too far out to be believable created by conspiracy theorists. Google The Big Lie – it was invented by a master at this. Maurice Strong was a lifelong admirer of Chinese Communism. He spent his last several years as a resident of Beijing where he died about a decade ago. • Geochem says: Dogma? Um, no. In March of this year the six largest fossil fuels companies in the world stipulated in US Federal Court that climate science is a fact and that humans are the driving force behind the observations being made. The time for denial or doubt is over. Like the tobacco industry, the truth has come out. Also, from this case a substantial amount of evidence was provided that Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon have known through their own research efforts about the dangers of their business model to our climate since the late 1970’s, fom internal company documents. This revelation is the basis of the NYS AG case against Exxon for shareholder fraud…hiding business risks from investors. https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2017cv06011/318403/283 • Geochem wrote: “In March of this year the six largest fossil fuels companies in the world stipulated in US Federal Court that climate science is a fact and that humans are the driving force behind the observations being made.” The case against the oil companies was dismissed, as follows: INTRODUCTION In these “global warming” actions asserting claims for public nuisance, defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. The scientific issues are discussed here: ANALYSIS The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a rise in sea level. The sole claim for relief is for “public nuisance,” a claim governed by federal common law. The specific nuisance is global-warming induced sea level rise. Plaintiffs’ theory, to repeat, is that defendants’ sale of fossil fuels leads to their eventual combustion, which leads to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which leads to more global warming and consequent ocean rise. ____________ It is scientifically irrelevant what these companies stated – they have no particular expertise in climate science. The companies’ admission does not quantify the warming caused by fossil fuels, the very essence of the scientific question, which is: “Will increasing atmospheric CO2 cause a little global warming or a lot? That is what the fractious mainstream climate argument is about – what is the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity (CS) to increasing atmospheric CO2? The IPCC alleges a ridiculously high CS in their climate computer models in order to create a false alarm – it is notable that their models run far too hot when compared to actual observations. Even if one attributes ALL the warming since 1850 or since 1979 to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated CS is only about 1C/(2xCO2), which is not dangerous, but is net-beneficial to humanity and the environment. [References: Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018] The energy companies chose a certain strategy, which may prove to be too expedient and short-sighted. This approach will probably cause them bigger problems in the future. I conclude that the appeasement strategy adopted by the energy majors have done a great disservice to their shareholders and the public. For example, this appeasement strategy has resulted in the loss of$120 billion in energy revenues for Canada, due to a lack of export pipelines.

The energy companies are in a war with leftist extremists, and the companies are lying down and letting the extremists walk over them. One of my colleagues, a senior energy executive, recently remarked to me:
“These senior execs want their eight years at the top to be peaceful, and then they take their big cash package and retire, dumping the problem for their successors.”

I miss the likes of Lee Raymond at Exxon – a tough, brilliant man who understood the big picture – that once you give in to a lie you are on a slippery slope and you cannot easily recover. The current crop of CEO’s are sellouts who have betrayed their stakeholders.

2. Rhoda R says:

And another country begins to wake up.

3. Joel Snider says:

And Gosh, they tried to murder him. Damn near did, too.

• Joel O'Bryan says:

In Brazil, violent murders of notable people who cross or threaten the wrong people are unfortunately not infrequent.
see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_Brazilian_politicians
or
http://time.com/5210509/assassination-brazilian-politician-marielle-franco-global-icon/

In the Northern Hemisphere’s “advanced” countries the more sophisticated assassins prefer to use minute amounts of radiological elements (like the pure beta producer Strontium-90) to impose a lethal hematologic malignancy on their victim. Dead is dead, even if they have to wait 6-12 months. And unless a specific radiologic bioassay is performed on the victim, a radiation-induced malignancy is indistinguishable in the clinical setting from a naturally occurring one.

In the cloak and dagger world of foreign intelligence revenge, the 2006 Russian assassination of Alexander Litvinenko was such a sloppy assassination because of a 10,000 times more Po-210 dose was used than needed for a delayed but certain death. In the hours after his poisoning by a spiked teapot, Litvinenko left a hot trail at the places he visited before falling ill that night. Authorities were able to trace his visits by the trace radiation trail he left behind. The Russians in their attempt to murder Sergei Skripal in Salisbury this year they tried to use a novel nerve agent to thwart the radiologic detection of the Litvinenko assassination. Simply put the Russians don’t care if they are caught.

Beta radiation is difficult to detect because it can be stopped by a sheet of paper, but once taken inside living cells can be devastating. With beta radiation more sophisticated high sensitivity Geiger tube detectors are needed.

• Alan Tomalty says:

What is scary is unless you live in a country like North Korea or Cuba, you can be assassinated by anyone who has the means no matter where they live. Putin could order his assassins to carry out a contract murder on anyone one of us as long as there is some information on some database as to where you live. No one is safe to being assassinated in modern times.

• Alan Tomalty says:

Perhaps Israeli security is good enough, but I can’t wrap my head around diplomatic pouches being exempt from search and xray.

• MarkG says:

If Salisbury is an example of how competent Putin’s assassins are, I’m not going to lose much sleep over it.

4. Jeff says:

One of the hottest, equatorial countries on earth hasn’t been scared by the warming alarmism.
It’s just a matter of time before the colder countries wake up too.

• Patrick MJD says:

Australia isn’t cold and we are being driven in to oblivion by blind faith!

• ThomasJK says:

……Or, maybe by weaponized ignorance?

• Paulo says:

Maximum of 22º C day 20/11 in Rio de Janeiro !!!!!! And it was not news!
Bolsonaro won an election spending $1,000,000.00. He campaigned using only social media. Unbelievable! You will not leave Paris because you can not. It also can not face China with the US. We do not have the strength to do this. 5. BillP says: Google translate does not work on the blog, but you can cut and paste text from it into Google translate. I think this is the relevant post: Hijack and pervert The tactic of the Left essentially consists in the following: to sequester legitimate causes and noble concepts and to pervert them to serve their political project of total domination. The environmental cause is a good example. Who can be against the preservation of nature and the responsible use of its resources? The environmental cause was launched by romantic writers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a conservative movement par excellence, emerged in reaction to the irruption of the left in the world under the French Revolution, whose purpose was to destroy nature – starting with nature human. Over time, however, the left has sequestered the environmental cause and perverted it to the point of paroxysm over the last 20 years with the ideology of climate change, climate change. The climate gathered some data suggesting a correlation of rising temperatures with increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, ignored data suggesting the opposite, and created a “scientific” dogma that no one else can contest on pain of being excommunicated from good society – just the opposite of the scientific spirit. This dogma has served to justify an increase in the regulatory power of states over the economy and power of international institutions over national states and their populations, as well as to stifle economic growth in democratic capitalist countries and foster China’s growth. (An important part of the globalist project is to transfer economic power from the West to the Chinese regime, a key part of Trump’s project is to disrupt that process, which is already happening.) Climate is basically a globalist tactic of instilling fear for more power . The climate says, “You there, you’re going to destroy the planet. His only option is to give me everything, to give me the guidance of his life and his thought, his freedom and his individual rights. I’ll tell you if you can drive, if you can turn on the light, if you can have kids, who you can vote for, what can be taught in schools. Only then will we save the planet. If you come up with questions, with data other than the official data I control, I’ll call you climate denier and throw you into the intellectual dungeon. Thanks? ” The same thing happened with the cause of workers’ rights and the very word “work”. The just demands of the workers from the nineteenth century, once sequestered and perverted by the left, came to give the PT, the “Workers’ Party.” The PT simply has no workers. No real worker, bricklayer, plumber, electrician, has ever been seen anywhere near the PT. It is a party of union bureaucrats, agitators of various kinds, Marxist or sub-Marxist intellectuals and their mats in the media and in the arts class. The Workers’ Party, therefore, is one more Orwellian designation among so many others used by the left, as false and opportunistic as the sudden color change of Haddad’s campaign. In Brazil, the real workers, kidnapped by the left, are being able to free themselves from captivity and are no longer allowed to pervert. Today we have in Brazil the clash between, on the one hand, the workers, and on the other the “Workers Party”. In fact, the PT is as “hard-working” as Haddad’s heart is green and yellow. At the moment this seems obvious, the new PT marketing is a ridiculous move. However, looking at the whole history of the left, this change of color must concern us. Let’s not let the PT do with our flag, with nationality, the same as it has done with the environment, with work and with so many things: kidnapping and perverting. • Gil says: What’s PT. It’s good to spell out the whole phrase before you start abbreviating it. • shrnfr says: I suggest that you read the post. PT is one of the political parties. • Phil says: The just demands of the workers from the nineteenth century, once sequestered and perverted by the left, came to give the PT, the “Workers’ Party. Read the 4th paragraph. PT: Partido dos Trabalhadores • Alan Tomalty says: He did. It is the Workers party. • Joel O'Bryan says: “we have in Brazil the clash between, on the one hand, the workers, and on the other the “Workers Party”. His description of Brazil’s PT party pretty much mirrors the US Democratic Party having alienated the working class with its identity politics and environmental globalism that costs US workers their jobs. • Alan Tomalty says: Unfortunately the US lost a good % of their workers to China. The US consumer got lower prices and shoddier or even dangerous goods in return and US industry got blocked from bbeing able to compete in China on a fair platying field by illegal Chinese rules. They were set up by China even though those rules contravened the WTO rules. Along with that US and Canadian technology has been stolen from fims because of the illegal 51% Chinese partner rules of China. By the way Canada used to have one of the largest high tech firms in the world. It was called Nortel. Along with an incompetent chairman called Mr Roth who didn’t realize that Chinese hackers were stealing all of Nortel’s technology. This enabled firms like Huawei to grow enormously and flood the market to outcompete Nortel. Nortel subsequently went bankrupt. • Mark Pawelek says: “starting with nature human” => “starting with human nature” • richard Patton says: Most languages of the world have the adjective after the noun. ex: House White instead of White House. You can’t get a perfect translation. Especially if the one doing the translation isn’t well practiced. • Michael 2 says: Wow. That’s some sharp writing! • Tom Abbott says: I thought so, too. 6. BillP says: Another interesting post from him: Ideology not, yes ideas Ideas and ideology are different things. An ideology is a system of manipulation of thought and ideas in function of an objective of power. Ideas are the living essence of the human mind. Ideas are the dynamic result of the processing of reality by intellect and feeling. Reality does not exist alone, nor concepts or ideas exist alone, or should not exist. Ideology establishes a split between reality and concepts, pulls ideas from their organic roots into reality, and thus petrifies thought to control people. In repudiating ideology, care must be taken not to give up ideas. The repudiation of ideology must mean the liberation of ideas, not their extermination. Otherwise, we would do exactly what ideology wants. In ideology the ideas are there, chained, skinny, hungry, working as slaves to the system of domination. We need to break the chains that hold ideas, bring them out, and bathe them again in reality. We can not confuse things, we can not decree the end of thought by establishing the end of ideology. We Brazilians revolt against the ideology that dominated us, openly or insidiously, for a long time, in the form of Escancardo Marxism or more often of globalism with its various aspects. Now, this ideology tries to metamorphose itself to continue dominating. A dangerous metamorphosis would occur if, in the name of the end of ideology, we submitted to the prohibition of thinking and having ideas. No one wants to substitute one ideology for another. But one should not substitute ideology for emptiness, for mechanicism, for tautology, for superficiality. In order to overcome ideology, we must return to thinking, and not ceasing to think, under the excuse that any thought is ideological. A healthy pragmatism should replace ideology. Being pragmatic does not mean having no soul. Being pragmatic does not mean having no heart. Being pragmatic means studying reality from who we are and seeking the best paths for what we want to be. • Alan Tomalty says: This man understands the world. • toorightmate says: I have been fortunate to have visited Brazil several times. It is a beautiful country with wonderful people (except for the Rio and Sao drug runners). It has been held back for decades by stupid, leftist politicians. The Brazilian economy is largely self-sufficient and the country has so much potential. I hope the new broom has a long life. • Giorgio says: Oh, come on. Brazil has been under a right-wing dictatorship for 25 yrs, then President Collor de Mello was a right winger himself (and impeached for corruption), and President Cardoso was opposed to Lula, so again not a left winger. Apparently they didn’t do so much better than others. Truth is, Brazil is a huge and rich country, where the wealth distribution is VERY uneven, and where corruption is everywhere. A person I know quite well had a firm there, but some years ago closed it and came back to Europe: he was very sorry because his heart is still there, but he states it’s impossible to run a firm, too much corruption and violence. He is keen on going to Mexico now, go figure. That said, the quotes I’m reading above are extremely interesting and show a great insight. I’m just not into the “macho” politics. • SAMURAI says: Giorgio-san: I do a lot business in Brazil and travel there often. Leftists have destroyed Brazil’s economy, which is now ranked around 150th in the world in terms of economic freedom. If free-market capitalism were ever to be tried in Brazil, It would be one the world’s richest and most prosperous countries, but alas…. Left/Right is simply a sliding scale of economic freedom; the further Left, the less economic freedom exists, and the further Right, the more economic freedom exists.. • Ivone says: Giorgio, Sorry, I live in Brazil and you are wrong. The military government, yes government not dictatorship, wasn’t right winged as you say. So weren’t Collor de Mello and Henrique Cardoso, both of leftist parties. We’ve never had a right party in Brasil. Even Bolsonaro isn’t right, you could put him in the centre. Who is more right winged is his economy minister, but never extreme right. I’ve seen some ridiculous statements, mainly copied from extreme leftist journalists that put Bolsonaro as extreme right. Sorry, he is simply a man who puts the normal heterosexual family in the center of social life and as the basis of a healthy society. • skorrent1 says: From the viewpoint of a true Marxist, every opponent is a “Right-Wing Extremist”. If one starts with the no-government/Anarchist as the extreme right, then the polar opposite would be any form of dictatorship, military, Marxist, or Shariah. 7. There is no such thing as “climate science”. Science is science It is a process to discover Truth. In order to apply the process to the understanding of the weather, it is necessary to engage many disciplines of science. To say climate is changing, it is necessary for rational discussion to clarify WHICH climate (by definition climate is regional and includes manifold parameters) and over what INTERVAL. In order to determine change, it is a requirement to specify a METRIC, since discussion of CHANGE is nonsense unless the means by which it is measured is specified. The metric that applies to climate is a classification, such as Koppen-Geiger or Trewartha, determined over a period of at least thirty years. What region has experienced a NET CHANGE over the past hundred years? • Donald Kasper says: There is no such thing as climate science. That is just slang for interlopers looking for jobs. If you study climate, you are a climatologist. • Louis Hooffstetter says: “If you study climate, you are a climatologist.” Yep, and if you are a “Climate Scientist” you’re just a propagandist with a science background. “Climate Scientists” don’t study climate, they publish crap for money. Give them your message and pay them well, and voila!, they publish ‘science’ that supports your message based on cherry-picked / adjusted / fabricated data, crap computer model projections, deceptive graphs, and sometimes, outright lies. • richard Patton says: Maybe a slight change here and there. But if the so-called ‘dry line’ in the Midwest US (100 W longitude) hasn’t moved in over a hundred years, I seriously doubt the deleterious effects of the warming that has occurred over that past century. • Geochem says: The Arctic region. 8. commieBob says: The brain is divided into two halves. The left half has language and logic. The right half is more in touch with reality but, lacking the expressive ability of the left, doesn’t explain its case very well. On the other hand, the left hemisphere, left to its own devices, is an unmitigated disaster. The liberals have betrayed the forgotten people. So, unsurprisingly, the forgotten people have voted for Brexit and elected Trump and elected Bolsonaro. The forgotten people aren’t very good at articulating their pain and come off sounding like racists, etc. Thomas Sowell, in The Vision of the Anointed points out that the liberal elite views the unwashed masses as lesser beings. Everything that happens to poor white folks is their own fault after all. Opposition to the vision of the anointed is due not to a different reading of complex and inconclusive evidence, but exists because opponents are lacking, either intellectually or morally, or both. The anointed see conservative election results as a disaster for the world. It’s not, it’s just a disaster for the anointed. • commiebob, My take on politics and brain physiology is that whether someone leans left or right depends on how the brain resolves conflict between emotion and logic, or between the right and left hemispheres. So many partisan issues seem to fall along these lines, including CAGW. • Harry Passfield says: CO2, my observation on this left brain/right brain is simple. I consider myself right brain with quite a bit of logic thrown in from the left. I find – and this is the test – that I answer a phone, predominately, with my left ear (right brain). I tend to be wary of people who answer it with the right ear. They have no heart (art). • Philo says: Kinda off topic- but the left brain\right brain is just a meme, an idea gone wild. People have one brain. When it is stimulated, say when you are chased by a tiger, the whole brain reacts. Left/Right, up/down, various focal points, but it basically acts from the bottom up. The bottom is where the most primitive reactions are(TIGER-run!), dump your bowels, piss yourself, where’s a tree??! Eventually, if you survive the scare, whatever it is, more rational thinking kicks in, and eventually you might write a book about it. The brain reacts to politics the same way- from the primitive reaction to a possible threat and eventually all the way up to threat analysis and emotional reactions. Same thing in wars, battles, and small unit fighting. Quite often the problem is really that there are no “right”, correct, or mutually beneficial actions to take. Someone always gets hurt. • Harry Passfield says: Philo, I shall think on what you say. Thank you. Yet, here’s a thing. All my life I’ve generally used a phone to my left ear and can interact with the caller very well. If I ever have to use my right ear for a call I find it difficult to concentrate on the caller and parse what is being said. Curious, no? • Philo, Here’s a paper that discusses how emotion is processed by the right hemisphere, language is the left and other asymmetries. Logic and emotion are clearly not processed in the same place and logic seems more closely associated with the left hemisphere. The political polarization that arises from resolving conflict between logic and emotion could be related to the connectivity in the corpus collosum or it could be something else. Perhaps its a faith based bias in the logical moderating by the left brain of what seems reasonably to the more creative and gullible right brain. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001767 • Roger Taguchi says: The liberal elitist attitude was revealed in former President Obama’s comment about his opponents as “less evolved” (you know, they’re just monkeys…). This stems from an unjustified extrapolation of the Chain of Life, from bacteria to the Amoeba to worms to fish to amphibians to mammals to apes to humans to The Next Evolutionary Stage. Since evolution has been a story of increasing mental complexity and intelligence, that next stage will produce a supersmart being, with the intellectual elite being forerunners, a comforting, self-congratulatory thought. Nietzsche proclaimed that next stage was the Superman, and we know how that extrapolation turned out when adopted by the Aryan Nazis… Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw the end being some vague Omega Point. However, evolution is not the story of a linear Chain (an update of the trend from animals to humans to angels to God), but a Tree of Life, with many branches, and our branch might end up in extinction (certainly the lowly bacteria will long outlive the human species). Liberal Progressives also extrapolate the trend in growth of political organizations from the family to the clan to the nation state to…the inevitable One World government (with Climate Change laws enforced by that Unitary state until everyone on Earth is equal). However, even today we see divisive forces based on race, language, religion, history, cultures, etc. so this amalgamating trend is not extendable forever. The Soviet Union has broken apart; ditto Yugoslavia; the EU is vulnerable, with Brexit maybe the first step. Czechoslovakia has been divided, and so has Sudan, East Timor has separated, with maybe Quebec someday separating from the Rest of Canada. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have already split apart. That’s OK: let nation states shelter different groups in a multicultural world, as long as they respect other nation states (just as you can have pride in your own school at Bowl games, while respecting the abilities and humanity of others). The wasteful bureaucracy of the EU is a warning that bigger is not necessarily better. In their mania for full equality, some would have everyone in the world being given half a winter coat, all the same size…. Your idea of a dual brain has some merit. Just as we now accept wave/particle duality for electrons and photons, we ought to accept the duality of human drives. They are complementary features, not contradictory. We all necessarily have a reptilian brain run by fear, greed, hatred, lust, anger, etc. From about age 2, we also develop a mammalian brain responsible for empathy, cooperation, caring for others, etc. In our teens we also develop a logical, rational, reasoning brain capable of understanding cause-and-effect (so in a sense we have a 3-in-1, or triune brain). These brains operate in parallel; the existence of our reasoning or caring brains does not mean we have outgrown our reptilian brains, whose desires are submerged into our subconscious (they might come out again in senility, when the self-control by the rational or caring brains is diminished). Liberal Progressives of the highest ideals use their above-average intelligence to argue for the caring, better angels of our nature. However, they are unrealistic and dangerous when they ignore our baser instincts which conservatives know are still there in all of us. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance to put down those whose livelihoods are in peril, as if they were all “deplorables” unworthy of treatment as fellow human beings. I must admit that I would respect and admire anyone who allows every spare room in his/her own house to be occupied free-of-charge by the homeless, or who in his/her will donates all of the estate to charity, rather than to their own children, grandchildren, spouse, siblings, and other relatives. However, I don’t think it is realistic to expect or force this for all, when one considers the hard wiring of our reptilian and mammalian brains. This is something that the Liberal Progressives have not asked themselves or accepted, so they are living in a fantasy land. • Alan Tomalty says: You would be amazed at how many of the EU parliament members are actual socialists. • toorightmate says: Extreme left wing socialists. On a par with the UN malingerers. • Craig from Oz says: “The forgotten people aren’t very good at articulating their pain and come off sounding like racists, etc.” Going to have to partly disagree with you there, Mr Bob. The accepted understanding is that the Left own Twit and to a lesser extent, social media as a whole. Supported by the power of ‘Like’ and openly Left platform owners who block and ban without shame, social media is a horrible place to attempt to hold discussion. The flip side of this is that it is considered that the Right own the internet. Left Blogs that are not run as funded businesses are very rare and, despite the best efforts to shut them, YouTube remains filled if not dominated with Right leaning creators telling the world exactly what they think. Which leads to the observation that the Right are usually far better at articulating than the Left. Blogging requires effort. Creating video content requires effort. Being entertaining requires talent. The internet is owned by the Right because the right produces people who know that instant gratification is pointless and that if you really want to do something you are going to have to put in a bit of effort. (Also, because YouTubes is trying hard to remove advertising, Rights know that if you really want to do something, it is going to cost you.) Lefts are rarely good at articulating. They have lived the hash tag/Like Button life for so long they don’t know how to structure an argument. If you look at the tweet of the average Left it is barely readable gibberish, half filled with LEET and emojis and with only the closing hash tag as a clue to what they are actually trying to say. They can’t argue, because arguing requires effort, so they show, scream, and rally behind people who shout and scream in the best fair trade manner because secretly they don’t understand the problem. Rights understand the problem. They is why they are angry. And because they understand it they are able to debate it. The problem the right faces is that part of the core being of ‘Right’ is that you don’t want or feel the need to be in charge. You want to be left alone in order to do what is best for you and your loved ones. The Right do not naturally group for control, they group for mutual enjoyment and mutual benefit. So when they get angry they often lack the focus to form a linked reply. So what you get is a mass of gibbering lefties all shouting their latest hashtag without really understanding why – Orange Man Bad – drowning out the thousands of Rights who are all trying to speak with individual logic. The individuality and freedom of the Right in these situations actually count against us. We actually articulate very well, we just do it individually. • Samuel C Cogar says: Me thinks youse guys are simply mimicking the “science fiction” and “fantasies” being touted by the “psychobabblers” who depend upon it being believed by the populace to insure their pseudo-professional status and job security. The literal fact is, ….. “You are what your environment nurtured you to be.” “HA”, the “psychobabblers” and “psychobabbler wannabees” …. have convinced millions of the educated and miseducated that their use of fMRI has permitted said “psychobabblers” to determine what the human brain/mind is doing ….. simply by observing the per se “electrical activity” of a few dozen brain neurons and synapses. “HA”, they should practice their fMRI research on trying to figure out what a functionally operating Intel® Core™ X-series processor is doing …… before even thinking about trying to resolve what the human brain/mind is doing. 9. Lucius von Steinkaninchen says: I live in Brazil and green platforms are a political dead end here. Lula’s PT (leftist Worker’s Party) would sometimes make vague allusions on the subject but in practice even them would not hesitate in pursuing offshore drilling and give generous incentives to mining companies. There was a candidate here who was more emphatically green, Marina Silva, and the ended in the 5th place at the first round of this year’s election. It’s almost as if a country that suffers chronic problems of rampant criminality and corruption, plus in recent years a deep economic crisis caused by over a decade of leftist tax-and-spend policies, would have more urgent priorities than losing its sleep over a sea level rise that may or may not happen in one hundred years. P.S.: also, Bolsonaro talked about possibly leaving and then staying in the Paris agreement before he was elected. I think that the most likely outcome is that he will stay on it in name only and just ignore the treaty – as essentially everyone does, even the oh-so-green European countries. One doesn’t have to worry about an accord that is nothing else than a meaningless text that nobody obeys. • M Courtney says: You are quite right about the Paris Agreement. Also, not leaving holds a sword over the head of the EU, hanging by a thread. That strengthens the Brazilian negotiating position. Leaving is a weaker position. • Jeff says: And they can probably claim some type of carbon credit in the Paris Agreement for growing all that sugar for conversion to biofuel. 10. Al Miller says: I always liked the Brazilians- now I have even more reason! The tide has started changing; the people are awakening; a new era of freedom from climate lies may be upon us! 11. William Astley says: In reply to: An important part of the globalist project is to transfer economic power from the West to the Chinese regime, a key part of Trump’s project is to disrupt that process, which is already happening.) ‘ William: The idiots have no plan. The idiots allowed China to steal technology and cheat in every market. China is now trying to steal territory, using traditional force and economic pressure. limate is basically a globalist tactic of instilling fear for more power . The climate says, “You there, you’re going to destroy the planet. His only option is to give me everything, to give me the guidance of his life and his thought, his freedom and his individual rights. I’ll tell you if you can drive, if you can turn on the light, if you can have kids, who you can vote for, what can be taught in schools. Only then will we save the planet. If you come up with questions, with data other than the official data I control, I’ll call you climate denier and throw you into the intellectual dungeon. Thanks? ” CAGW is the excuse used for the idiot super wasteful, Zombie, ‘government’ like entities such as the EU or UN. What will stop the madness is when the defaults start. There is a price for idiot, Zombie, governments. I • Giorgio says: Actually, much of the technology and the manufacturing capabilities were not stolen by Chinese, they were brought there by west-world companies trying to increase profits. What happened is the westerners, as we often do, underrated the Chinese and their will to become AGAIN a powerful nation. So, before putting the blame on them, we should put it on ourselves first. And, beware of what’s happening in Africa nowadays: it is becoming a huge Chinese colony, they are building roads and bridges and caves and extracting minerals like crazy. • Ivan Kinsman says: Agreed. Whatever one thinks about Trump, the Chinese are 10 times worse when it comes to the goverment’s iron grip over its people. China is becoming a huge threat – just look at how it is crushing civil rights in Hong Kong. The two big areas at stake are the South China Sea – which China has no rights to given that they have long been held to be international waters. And I agree with you that the second area is Africa where Chinese loans = Chinese political influence. Trump’s policy of America First may be considered positive to his domestic audience but he needs to really start thinking about how to combat growing Chinese internatational influence that is a direct threat to the West. Tariffs is a good way to start – let’s see what else can be used. 12. markl says: The momentum is gaining for upsetting the Climate Change apple cart. As long as the goal was just to save the planet for our children the followers stayed on board. Now they realize saving the planet really means redistribution of wealth from the Western industrialized countries to less prosperous countries, giving control of energy cost and distribution to ideologically driven politicians, and crippling the donors’ industry the mood is changing. Expect more countries to tell the king he has no clothes on. Especially since it’s to their advantage. The UN should be next on the agenda. • Alan Tomalty says: If i was running Canada I would leave the UN. I simply have not seen anything that the UN touched that couldnt have been done 100 times better and less expensive by unilateral action. Counter that with dozens of UN led initiatives that are still going on that have led to disaster and will lead to even bigger disasters. Also we will never forget the 2 biggest science scams of the UN. Ozone hole and climate change. Just as in most bureaucracies, any committee or agency that the UN creates lives on forever. • Ivan Kinsman says: That is one big pile of H**** S*** my friend. Combatting climate change has nothing to do with Marxism, Socialism or any other -ism. That is just a ‘scare tactics’ argument that the US sceptic community buys into and likes to propogage. • Tom Halla says: Ivan–so Christiana Figures and Maurice Strong were not real people? Or a long list of other devout socialists involved with Climate change? • Samuel C Cogar says: It appears that Ivan Kinsman just figured out who the “truth tellers” really are. Emotional “hurt” is the most painful of all hurting, ……. cause they don’t make a pill that will ease the pain. • Ivan Kinsman says: OK, so on that basis you are extrapoloating that all people who believe in climate change are socialists – I thought that sceptics were supposed to be ultra logical. Of course there will be some socialists who believe that increased man made CO2 emissions are warming this planet – why should’nt there be? But how does that equate to all people who think like this as being ‘socialists’. Don’t be absurd. • Tom Halla says: Ivan, it is not that all greens are socialists, just that the movement is dominated by socialists, a rather different thing. • MarkW says: Note how deftly ivanski moves the goal posts. From noting that most of the leaders of the AGW scam are pushing socialims/marxism, ivanski now declares that we believe that everyone who believes in the scam is pushing socialism/marxism. • MarkW says: While combating the mythical global warming shouldn’t require socialism, the reality is that all the big players push socialism/marxism as their preferred methods for implementing their solution. In fact the only reason why most climate warriors ever got on this band wagon was as a vehicle to implement socialism/marxism. Your beliefs don’t change reality. • Sunsettommy says: Ivan, I see that you haven’t ONCE actually addressed the post at all, could it be because you have NO counterpoint to make over what they say? Since you have no cogent argument to offer here, why bother being here when all you do is fog it up with evasions, deflections and bullcrap? 13. Lil Fella from OZ says: It is Left Wing. Make no mistake about it. 14. “Brazil’s president-elect Jair Bolsonaro has chosen a new foreign minister who believes climate change is part of a plot by “cultural Marxists” to stifle western economies and promote the growth of China.” I would say this a little differently , for example, ‘… broken climate science supports a globalist plot to stifle …’. Also, China isn’t the only one who benefits from strangling western economies, they’re just the one who gains the most. It’s good to see that he can look past all the noise coming from an illegitimate consensus and recognize the ground truth. There needs to be more Foreign Ministers like this in the world. 15. Tasfay Martinov says: What’s starting to happen is that around the world, people are getting sick and tired of the relentless pious hectoring on the supposed climate damnation awaiting the world due to the industrialisation that has brought so much good to so many. Also the same people detect a distinct odour of dishonesty in the whole climate campaign, mixed with that of faux moral superiority. So much flawed science and sleight of hand cannot be concealed from all the people all of the time. “Second world” or Brixa countries like Brazil have more recent memory of life without fossil power and electrification. Such days are still in living memory. 16. Tom Halla says: It is good to see a government which could be demanding tribute under the Paris Accords doubting the rationale. I wonder what the Brazilian Portuguese phrase is that is translated as “cultural Marxism”. It is fairly easy to play games with translations, using connotations not in the original. • Latitude says: same thing, only backwards….marxismo cultural 17. n.n says: Redistributive change, justified by a scientific pretense. I guess equitable trade and voluntary contributions were either politically incongruent (anti-PC) or did not hit the correct competing interests. Then there is the emotional appeal of saving Gaia from the “burden” of carbon-based life processes. 18. astonerii says: “But when the new government takes power in January, the foreign ministry that leads that work will be headed by a man who claims climate science is merely “dogma”.” By a man who actually sees through their BS and knows they are full of excrement. 19. gringojay says: Hope the grandchildren of the Girl from Ipanema benefit from new leadership. I crossed into northern Brazil from Venezuela in 1986. Only transport from that border south toward a road branching toward Iquitos were unscheduled trucks you’d negotiate a price to ride perched in the back. There was more violent crime in Brazil then Venezuela back then in my estimation. Lots of expatriots in Brazil were always running into each other. One’s friend supposedly went to a bar & woke up in a strange hotel all bandaged up. A doctor told him he was lucky & the expat asked what that meant. Doctor said: “They only took 1 kidney.” 20. Rob says: Not just cultural Marxists, but economic Marxists as well. 21. Gary Ashe says: Ofcourse they stay in. Its only 7 countries paying in, the rest all take out the billions, less the UN handling fees naturally. 22. michael hart says: So when do I get to vote for this Brazilian guy? 23. Robert of Texas says: Oh boy… I need to cook more popcorn for this show! 🙂 I wonder if he will survive (politically, not suggesting physically) a single term? 24. MarkW says: How does a cultural Marxist differ from a run of the mill one? • How does a cultural Marxist differ from a run of the mill one? They do not directly advocate Marxism. They advocate politically correct utopian ideals that strangely can only be achieved by more centralized state power. Take gay marriage. A minority is hijacked and to ensure their ‘rights’ are respected, a whole cultural element – marriage for children – is perverted and loses meaning. Marriage no longer means what it did 10 years ago. Cultural Marxism is an exercise in propaganda backed up by faux moral standards at aims to destroy the conservative (ideas that work) relationship between the individual and society and replace if with a faux ideology based on faux moral principles like social justice etc. 25. Art says: In a recent interview, co-founder of the German Green Party, Fritz Vahrenholt said the Greens were never about the environment, their intent was socialism, and the environment (and especially globa warming) was just an effective tool to mislead the public into accepting it. So in effect it really is a Marxist plot. • Ivan Kinsman says: Yeah, yeah, yeah – anyone who believes in climate change is automatically labelled a “leftist”. http://www.visegrad2017.com, a site I run, is far from being “leftist” – don’t pigeonhole people. • RACookPE1978 says: Not true. You may say it, you may even believe in that “religion” without the real evidence and even desire the harm that “fighting climate change” will bring, but none of those things make it true, make it “harmful” nor make it important. • MarkW says: Funny how whenever you comment on social/economic policy, you do so from a left to far left position. • Reg Nelson says: None of the lead authors of the report were appointed by Trump. And one doesn’t even work for a government agency — he’s an academic. To call this a “Trump administration report” is completely inaccurate and misleading, but what did you expect from CNN. • MarkW says: Also what you would expect from ivanski and his propaganda site. • MarkW says: Once again ivanski reveals that his only skill is moving goal posts. Note how he proclaim an admitance that man has played a small part in the extremely small warming over the last 150 years as being an admittance that all of the lunacies he supports must be adopted. The extremely small warming that CO2 is capable of producing is 100% beneficial, as is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The only thing that’s obvious is how you mischaracterize the position of others. 26. David Stone says: You are close to seeing the real effect of the Paris agreement. The UK is very close to not having enough electricity supply to get through the winter, and if our grid fails, the economic damage will be huge. All we need is a week of windless days and a problem with one of our power stations, then areas of the country will be without electricity for a week or two. The EU are also trying to stop us having mothballed spare capacity as this is considered an “illegal subsidy” of the supply industry, rather than an essential safety measure. If the supply fails a great many older citizens will die of cold, unless “climate change” suddenly makes our country 10 degrees C warmer than it usually is. Green philosophy does not care about people, it cares only for polar bears or some other furry toy styled creatures. The political fall out of this failure could be severe, because “green” killing people is a very powerful message of policy failure. • Ivan Kinsman says: Typical sceptic scaremongering here. As bad as that of those you accuse of spreading doom and gloom about climate change. You do that, don’t you? • MarkW says: Notice how ivanski doesn’t even attempt to refute the charge. It’s because he knows he can’t. All he’s capable of is distraction. • Sunsettommy says: Ivan, You are being silly here because the “scaremongering” is almost all coming from the warmist/alarmist camp, the Media, the Socialists, the Democrats are the ones who push the doom and gloom message every day. Have you been reading what Al$ Gore, Governor of California, Dr. Mann have been saying recently?

• Lurker Pete says:

David, can you explain/provide sources for the claim “The UK is very close to not having enough electricity supply to get through the winter” please.

A cursory glance at the National Grids Winter outlook document suggest:
Total maximum technical capability from generation: 104.7 GW
Peak transmission system demand/Normalised demand: 48.2 GW
or ACS peak underlying demand: 60.5 GW

I don’t pretend to understand the issue, but I can’t find anything to tally with your claim.

Wondering weather to speed up my plan for a back-up home generator, or not.

• rishrac says:

@ Luker, I don’t trust any of those numbers you quoted.

Everybody needs to produce steel in their backyards. Mao.

Perhaps as reliable production falls, a million backup generators will hum. Luker Pete, if you have doubts about whether the UK has enough electrical supply, look at New South Wales in Australia. I guess it works if you shut down industry and have a monthly utility bill of $1200/month. Don’t worry though, just as soon as the communists seize control, the first ban will be on your back up generator, whether you have electricity or not. Or something to run it, like fossil fuel, will either be non existent or so expensive as to render a backup generator useless. • dan no longer in CA says: Here’s a link to UK current grid supply and demand. Fraction of generating capacity is not clear, but it neatly divide the producers by type, including offshore ties. http://gridwatch.co.uk/ • MarkW says: That total capacity assumes that wind and solar will be producing nameplate power all of the time. 27. Bernie Goetz says: This will not be popular. I worked in waste water treatment, doubt CO2 causes global warming, bit think mankind could be warming the oceans. Mankind uses the oceans as a toilet for industrial, human, and animal waste. The third world and Asia are the biggest problems. Polluted (darker) ocean water absorbs more sunlight than clean water. If the oceans are warming its because of this and not because trivial atmospheric CO2 acts as a blanket. If this is true spending money addressing atmospheric CO2 will hurt economies greatly and do nothing to solve the problem. Waste water treatment IF properly done would cost a tiny fraction of the money proposed to pointlessly address reducing CO2. In addition human ocean pollution depletes ocean oxygen levels, causes acidification, and adds significant carcinogens. My experience is libs don’t care about ocean pollution and think CO2 is evil. CO2 is a good thing, it makes plants grow better and helps combat deforestation. 28. Why is WUWT taking a Guardian headline and re-stating it as if it’s factually correct? Jonathan Watts (no relation as far as I know) is notoriously unreliable. He’s the one responsible for the misrepresentation of the last IPCC report (“We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN”) 29. Geochem wrote: “In March of this year the six largest fossil fuels companies in the world stipulated in US Federal Court that climate science is a fact and that humans are the driving force behind the observations being made.” The case against the oil companies was dismissed, as follows: INTRODUCTION In these “global warming” actions asserting claims for public nuisance, defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. The scientific issues are discussed here: ANALYSIS The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a rise in sea level. The sole claim for relief is for “public nuisance,” a claim governed by federal common law. The specific nuisance is global-warming induced sea level rise. Plaintiffs’ theory, to repeat, is that defendants’ sale of fossil fuels leads to their eventual combustion, which leads to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which leads to more global warming and consequent ocean rise. ____________ It is scientifically irrelevant what these companies stated – they have no particular expertise in climate science. The companies’ admission does not quantify the warming caused by fossil fuels, the very essence of the scientific question, which is: “Will increasing atmospheric CO2 cause a little global warming or a lot? That is what the fractious mainstream climate argument is about – what is the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity (CS) to increasing atmospheric CO2? The IPCC alleges a ridiculously high CS in their climate computer models in order to create a false alarm – it is notable that their models run far too hot when compared to actual observations. Even if one attributes ALL the warming since 1850 or since 1979 to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated CS is only about 1C/(2xCO2), which is not dangerous, but is net-beneficial to humanity and the environment. [References: Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018] The energy companies chose a certain strategy, which may prove to be too expedient and short-sighted. This approach will probably cause them bigger problems in the future. I conclude that the appeasement strategy adopted by the energy majors have done a great disservice to their shareholders and the public. For example, this appeasement strategy has resulted in the loss of$120 billion in energy revenues for Canada, due to a lack of export pipelines.

The energy companies are in a war with leftist extremists, and the companies are lying down and letting the extremists walk over them. One of my colleagues, a senior energy executive, recently remarked to me:
“These senior execs want their eight years at the top to be peaceful, and then they take their big cash package and retire, dumping the problem for their successors.”

I miss the likes of Lee Raymond at Exxon – a tough, brilliant man who understood the big picture – that once you give in to a lie you are on a slippery slope and you cannot easily recover. The current crop of CEO’s are sellouts who have betrayed their stakeholders.