From The Daily Caller
Actually A Call For Global Socialism
2:50 PM 01/08/2019 | Energy
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
The most popular climate paper of 2018 called for “collective human action” to keep global warming from turning Earth into a “hothouse,” according to media tracking data.
The so-called “Hothouse Earth” paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in August, sparked a wave of alarming media coverage the planet was “dangerously close” to reaching “unstoppable” warming.
“The paper was the fifth most talked-about of all journal papers published last year,” and the most talked about paper related to global warming, according to the website Carbon Brief. (RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ Would Avert A ‘Barely Detectable’ Amount Of Global Warming)
“It was the subject of 460 news stories in 326 outlets, including the Guardian, BBC News, Sky News, New Scientist, Al Jazeera and the Sydney Morning Herald. Links to the paper were also included in 5,392 tweets and 34 Facebook posts,” Carbon Brief reported Tuesday.
Carbon Brief ranked climate papers based on data from Altmetric, a group that tracks papers mentioned in “news articles and blogs and shared on social media sites, such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Reddit.”
The paper, co-authored by a group of prominent scientists, called for a “deep transformation based on a fundamental reorientation of human values, equity, behavior, institutions, economies, and technologies.”
The scientists warned the global warming tipping point to an uninhabitable “hothouse Earth” was 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. “Fundamental societal changes” to create a “stabilized Earth” are needed, according to the study’s press release.
Many conservatives called out the study’s authors for pushing “socialist demands” for “global government.”
“Instead of focusing on the science and identifying tipping points and trajectories, the abstract meanders off to demand global government,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance co-founder Michael Liebreich tweeted in response to the “hothouse” paper.
“Mixing science with socialist demands usually means the science is crap, and as a conservative I can’t be bothered to read it,” said Liebreich, who’s no skeptic of man-made warming.
The Global Warming Policy Forum, a U.K.-based think tank co-founded by former conservative Member of Parliament Nigel Lawson, blasted it as the “socialist agenda of climate alarmism.”
Other climate and energy experts were skeptical of the “hothouse” paper as well.
Climate scientist Bob Kopp said there was “no new science in the piece to argue that the transition to a Hothouse will be completed rapidly.” Kopp said that while a “hothouse Earth” could become a reality, “we don’t know what will trigger it, and the transition will take centuries.”
A study claiming global warming could cause a beer shortage was the fourth most talked about climate paper, according to Carbon Brief.
The study, published in October, found global barley production could drop as much as 17 percent on average under a “business as usual” scenario. However, that’s based on global warming projections deemed “exceptionally unlikely” by experts in the field.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
HT/Willie Soon
‘The paper was the fifth most talked-about of all journal papers published last year’
And that is all that matters, for like any religion facts or reality are not a means to judge value of any claim ,all that matters is the ‘positive impact’ something has on the promotion of the faith or the ‘purity ‘ of its dogma. One reason to get so many silly stories about gods face being seen in ‘toast’ etc
Headlines first , everything else second is one golden rule of climate ‘science ‘
Judeo-Christianity is based on facts and first-hand experiences, and has lots of historical and archeological evidence, going back to “Hebrews” being noted in Egypt in the correct time frame, before the Exodus. By the sixth century BC, when strongly datable historical archeology really begins to firm up across many cultures, the Bible cross-checks with a great deal of other historical records.
Ancient Egyptian archaeology has Semitic people in Egypt at the correct time frame, including as slaves, with tasks including making bricks, including making bricks with straw. So, the generalities are consistent in the very oldest reaches of archaeology, and evidence consistent with the Bible grows in quantity and quality going forward in time. Generally, based on normal historical methods, many non-Christian historians hold the view that there was a genuine, historical Jesus, but may disagree about specifics, such as the degree of historical support for the resurrection.
There is an alternative explanation for all of this. The alternative explanation is that a group of people got together some time around 550 BC and made the story of the Jewish people, with a long history in the Levant and in Egypt, up out of whole cloth, and making up a story that happens to both match historical details and also not “out” itself with un-matching details (outside of miracles, understandably, and outside of the great claim of a centuries-long oral and written tradition of people history in a time frame where most such histories, such as those reported by Manetho, are known to have major inaccuracies).
–This conspiracy theory has no historical or factual basis; there is no evidence of a group of people getting togethet to forge a history in order to usurp land as their supposed homeland.
There is another competing explanation: the “Chinese Whispers” explanation. Again, there is no factual or historical basis for this (and there is a great deal of counter-factual evidence); it just has face appeal, as an alternative explanation to a very huge claim of generally factual claims of history across centuries in a time frame when this is otherwise unheard of.
You actually have to go and research this yourself in order to grasp the extent of all of this, rather than accept the explanations of Atheistic, communistic college professors speaking out of their own “worldview,” versus out of a serious review of the matter. –There are scholars, such as Richard Carrier and Bert Ehrman, with good critiques of all of this, and reviewing their arguments is good for becoming familiar with the factual and historical basis for scholarly, fact-based belief in the Bible. Either way, belief in the Judeo-Christian story is heavily supported by actual evidence, rather than blind faith or brainwashing.
That was excellent! Thank you.
“Either way, belief in the Judeo-Christian story is heavily supported by actual evidence, rather than blind faith or brainwashing.”
A No True Scotsman fallacy. We have only your assertion as evidence. There is double ought zero historical evidence of Jesus of Nazarath ever existing.
What do you say to:
“Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44”
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus , which is not a friendly source (Neither was Tacitus)
SR
A most interesting read. This passage stands out as significant for me:.
“John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that, based on the criterion of embarrassment, Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.”
Indeed. Roman historians wrote openly of Jesus.
Today’s war on Christianity continues.
About 90 years too late, Steve.
FIRST reference to Jesus of Nazareth was in the Gospels, ~70-100 AD. Next was Josephus, ~100 AD.
Absolutely no contemporary references to JoN. None.
Gamecock, I thought you said ” There is double ought zero historical evidence of Jesus of Nazarath ever existing.” Meaning “no secular historian ever”
Are you now saying you meant “No secular historian now publishing”?
Are you not aware that all historians living after the time of a historical event refer to writings of earlier historians? By your rules we would have to say there is double ought zero historical evidence of Cleopatra.
SR
Gamecock, upon 2nd reading I see you might have meant – No references to Jesus by historians living at his time.
Did secular historians at that time write about any contemporary events other than national, governmental and militarial? It took a few years for Jesus’ life to have a national effect.
SR
Except that Roman historians wrote of Jesus.
Do better next time.
Examples? There is nothing before 70 AD.
“Either way, belief in the Judeo-Christian story is heavily supported by actual evidence, rather than blind faith or brainwashing.”
There is no evidence.
Gamecock,
Historians writing about Cleopatra (69BC to 30BC):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch :
Plutarch Born c. 46 AD – 76 years after Cleopatra’s death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Dio :
Cassius Dio Born c. 155 AD – 185 years after Cleopatra’s death
By your rules we would have to say there is double ought zero historical evidence of Cleopatra.
Jesus had more contemporaneous historical reporting than Cleopatra.
SR
“Jesus had more contemporaneous historical reporting than Cleopatra.”
GREAT! Cite some!
Oh. You want to distract with talk of Cleopatra. Still waiting for any reference to JoN before 70 AD. Of course, you won’t find any. People have been searching for it for millennia.
So they’re now admitting that Margaret Thatcher was right when she wrote in STATECRAFT way back in 2002:
“The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”
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.
Addendum:
To believe the left is simply guilty of such incredible stupidity is to assume that they are all total imbeciles. Nobody is THAT stupid. This economic destruction is deliberate – this is their plan.
… but it will cure racism
Neo – Eliminating fossil fuels will “cure” everything. Do that tomorrow and almost everyone in the developed world will be dead in a month.
Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels and that number has not changed significantly in decades. The remaining 15% is almost all hydro and nuclear – green energy is less than 2% despite trillions in wasted subsidies.
When anyone worries about man-made “climate change” or espouses the virtues of “green energy”, just recognize you are talking with a scoundrel or an imbecile.
We need to call ‘Socialism’ what it really is, Communism.
As stated as such in the ‘The Communist Manifesto’
Hi Wally,
Leftists (aka Marxists, Progressives, Socialists, Greens, etc.) are the great killers of our age – Stalin and Mao killed about 130 million of their own people and Hitler killed more than 50 million in WW2. Then there are the lesser leftist killers, like Pol Pot in Cambodia. Greens have killed almost as many more with their phony wars against DDT/malaria and CO2/global warming.
Greens can also take credit for the food-for-fuels fiasco, the clear-cutting of the rainforest to grow sugar cane for ethanol and palm oil for biodiesel, the rapid draining of the Ogallala aquifer for corn ethanol and biodiesel, bird-and-bat-chopping wind turbines, runaway energy costs and reduced grid reliability, increased winter mortality and similar social and environmental disasters.
The question to ponder is:
“Are leftists really that stupid or is this green destruction part of their intended plan to destroy the economy and take control?”
Before you say “NO, of course not!”, consider Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and about 100 other failed countries in the world, where leftists obtained power through false promises, and then destroyed the economy and became dictators, ruling from the top with the help of the army, looking down on all the peasants. Is this just a remarkable coincidence, or is this their covert plan?
I think this is in fact the plan of the leadership of the Democratic Party in the USA, and similar leftist parties in the developed world. To believe the left is simply guilty of incredible stupidity is to assume that they are all total imbeciles. I suggest that nobody, with the possible exception of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is THAT stupid. This is planned.
In South Africa last year, an (official) political idiot was recorded as saying “We”ll just let the economy collapse. and then we’ll rebuild it OUR way!”. And this is from someone just over the border from the disaster that is Zimbabwe!
Bob – you are right, Thatcher could clearly see what was happening. But it would have been nice if she had shown some regrets about her role in creating that monstrous juggernaut that threatens to roll over all of us and destroy our way of life. Such is the arrogance of those who know they are right; they also know that they were right all along, even when saying the opposite of what they are saying now.
N ot6hing new here, its been obvious for a long time that the end game for all of this climate alarm, is for World Government, run of course by the United Nations.
Its just another version of Communism, but this time, so they think, it will work properly.
So will all the Useful Idiots” out there finally realise that it hat it has nothing to do with “Saving the Plannet” They have all “Been had”.
MJE
And when it eventually fails, committees will be formed by the Nomenklature to find the crypto-capitalists who’ve sabotaged their Utopia. Which will of course include any who are critical of the regime for it’s obvious failures. All will be required to parrot the demonstrably false as revealed Truth; or be shot. “Citizen! We don’t care if you’ve been in the bread line for 2 days, you must proclaim the grand success of the New Agricultural Bread Collective to deliver a surplus this year.”
It’s part of the delusion, there’s always another reason the vision will have failed to deliver. This time.
Once we get rid of the counter-revolutinaries, it’ll WORK! Fire up the ovens and gas chambers.
And South Africa has a ready-built blame (after 25 years of ANC rule) – “It’s all the fault of Apartheid/the whites”.
Facts? Who needs facts?
This is what a “Hothouse Earth” looks like…
(Older to right)
You literally “can’t get there from here”…
(Older to left)
“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”
According to some, Angela Merkel was a Stasi informant and it tells in her policies. I note that her Wikipedia entry denies it, but Wikipedia is very unreliable on political issues.
…and on climate issues.
. . . and on anything that I can edit!
/Sarc.
Of course.
Auto
So the Stasi is still around? Like Hydra?
It seems pretty clear that the dinos died off because of a large drop in temps and a 90% loss of CO2.
And a BIG rock.
That’s just a coincidence.
I would love to spend the time to delve into this mystery a lot deeper. But there is still a great deal of debate as to what killed off the dinosaurs, and over what time period they died off. It does seem that they died out over millennia, not within a single year. So it seems more than likely that the rock was indeed just a coincidence. (perhaps it change ocean circulation or something along those lines).
The glaciation of Antarctica as it arrived at the South polar position is clearly the trigger that shifted Earth’s climate for the last 30 or so million years. And it is still getting colder. The only thing we’ve got going for a livable Earth on those longest of time-scales is the slowly increasing luminosity of the sun.
On the scale of ten’s of thousands of years, invoking The MagicMolecule mystical properties won’t stop the on-going susceptibility of Earth’s climate to Malinkovitch-derived orbital forcing, and thus the Pleistocene of NH glacial/interglacial cycles. On the scale of a few hundred to a few thousand years, all we have is a noisy descent back to glaciation with occasional D-O events poking through the sediment records as Heinrich sedimentation events in the North Atlantic.
David:
Nice graphs!
While there are a couple of similar graphs on the reference page, shouldn’t these also be on the reference page?
Which reminds me, Willis’s greenland graphs should be on the reference page.
Vaclav Klaus, President of Czech Republic, on Global Warming
https://youtu.be/Ek4Icsz8BTo
2008
“The study, published in October, found global barley production could drop as much as 17 percent on average under a “business as usual” scenario. “….
Wouldn’t that just raise the price of barley, so more farmers would start
growing and selling it ?
Except under a Communist system, there would be barley production quotas, and collectives would misallocate resources to produce barley of whatever quality with equipment that nobody cares about maintaining or using efficiently. So the cost of beer would be ridiculous and the government would have to subsidize it at the expense of other areas of the economy. There would still be a shortage of beer but the party big wigs would steal more money from the people to import better quality product from Capitalist pigs.
That’s how that works.
Subsidize beer production? Then tax beer (alcohol) sales? I recall we’ve been here before with tobacco….subsidize tobacco farmers, then big taxes on the final retail products.
As stated you assume the free market still exists
Venezuela president Nicolás Maduro is in the process of celebrating a new start to the country, citizens of the country not so much.
The study explicitly assumed that farmers would not adapt in any way — that simplifies the analysis, but makes the impact wildly unrealistic. It was not the only defect of the paper.
Why call it Global socialism? Call it what it is – FAILED COMMUNIST MANIFESTO of WEALTH DISTRIBUTION!!!
Ask any leftist and they equate equal wealth distribution to morally fair … there is no justification to connection but it’s the simpleton approach the left makes. There are formulas around for fair distribution of wealth based on various criteria but funny enough very few of those end up with equal wealth distribution.
For me I would argue for equal opportunity on earned merit criteria for a morally fair society and that will definitely not lead to equal wealth distribution but it is very fair.
Isn’t that always the socialist meme? We are all in this together and all have to share the burden. (Except the elites!)
Not just that, but we need to stop being greedy and trying to use more than the elites think we should need. Of course, the elites continue to use as much as they want, since running everyone else’s lives is just so tiring.
And let’s not forget “it takes a village to brainwash, oops, I mean raise a child.
“Transformed social values”?
Here’s a small taste:
Tim
Much obliged. Duly reposted.
Scary stuff. So far the UK has a state broadcaster, a National Health Service (General Practitioners are allowed 10 minutes per consultation), gun control, state run education (indoctrinating children with the climate change lie), an anti Semitic opposition party (the socialist Labour party) and government controlled “bailed out” Banks who were, of course, too big to fail. Our MSM is predominantly socialist (including the BBC) and there is no right to free speech as if it offends it’s considered a hate crime.
Finally, we have a government determined to subvert the will of the majority of the British public by not implementing their wishes from the Brexit referendum.
Both of my sons have passed through the state education system and they were shown An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Climate Swindle, no prizes for guessing which one they warmed to (pun intended), mostly because one was littered with verifiable facts whilst the other chock full of emotive prose and half truths. This corner of the ‘Establishment’ is not as bad as you portray, stay optimistic!
The paper was presented as a “Perspectives” paper. About papers at PNAS:
https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-publishing-the-inside-track-1.15424
“Academy membership is one the most prestigious honours for a scientist, and it comes with a tangible perk: members can submit up to four papers per year to the body’s high-profile journal, the venerable Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), through the ‘contributed’ publication track. This unusual process allows authors to choose who will review their paper and how to respond to those reviewers’ comments.”
http://blog.pnas.org/iforc.pdf
“Perspectives present a viewpoint on an important area of research. Perspectives focus on a specific field or subfield within a larger discipline and discuss current advances and future directions. Perspectives are of broad interest to nonspecialists and may add personal insight to a field, but should be balanced and objective. [Like the Hothouse Earth paper?]
Perspectives are written only at the invitation of the Editorial Board and evaluated for publication using the same process as Direct Submissions.
More than 50% of Direct Submissions are declined by the Editorial Board without additional review, within 2 weeks on average. For papers that are sent on to an editor and reviewers, the average time to receive a decision is 41 days. If accepted, authors have their articles published online as soon as 4–5 weeks after acceptance.
Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper’s scientific area, and five qualified reviewers. The Board may choose someone who is or is not on that list or may reject the paper without further review. Authors are encouraged to indicate in their cover letter why their suggested editors are qualified to handle the paper. See the directory of PNAS Member Editors and their research interests. The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least two qualified reviewers, each from a different institution and not from the authors’ institutions.
PNAS will invite the reviewers, secure the reviews, forward them to the editor, and secure any revisions and subsequent reviews. The name of the editor must remain anonymous to the author until the paper is accepted. Direct Submissions are published as “Edited by” the responsible editor and have an identifying footnote.
Schellnhuber, founder director of Potsdam and Carl Folke from Stockholm Resilience Centre are both NAS members, Schellnhuber since 2005, Folke only since last year.
http://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/?q=Schellnhuber&site=nas_members
http://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/?q=Folke&site=nas_members
Schellnhuber is a member editor: http://nrc88.nas.edu/pnas_search/memberDetails.aspx?ctID=20010112
As is Carl Folke: http://nrc88.nas.edu/pnas_search/memberDetails.aspx?ctID=20041752
[I supect not many contrary papers get past this editorial board…]
The “Hothouse” authors are: Will Steffen, Johan Rockström, Katherine Richardson, Timothy M. Lenton, Carl Folke, Diana Liverman, Colin P. Summerhayes, Anthony D. Barnosky, Sarah E. Cornell, Michel Crucifix, Jonathan F. Donges, Ingo Fetzer, Steven J. Lade, Marten Scheffer, Ricarda Winkelmann, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.
There is a good mix of Potsdam and Stockholm Resilience Centre, as one would expect, given that Rockstrom is taking over from Schellnhuber at Potsdam: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/news–events/general-news/2018-02-23-johan-rockstrom-appointed-director-at-potsdam-institute-for-climate-impact-research.html
Lead author, Australian Will Steffen, is also affiliated with SRC: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2018-08-06-planet-at-risk-of-heading-towards-hothouse-earth-state.html
Crucifix Dong(?) and the notorious Papal ghost writer Sc(hell)nhuber, what could possibly go wrong? Sarcasm.
The main reason why I first doubted CAGW, now rebranded Climate Change, was that its loudest proponents were socialists. The more I read, the more obvious it seemed to me that even if there was a kernel of truth in it, it was a trojan horse, a vehicle for pushing global socialism. But a more mature analysis is that it is much more than a strategy used by ideological fanatics to build world socialism.
I do not think that there is an organized conspiracy of socialists orchestrating it all. The world socialism ideologues are just one group riding this hobbyhorse. Big business, accustomed to manipulating governments as a weapon against competition or to avoid taxes, are arguably a bigger player in the game.
Politicians who are not especially or consistently ideological and are focused more on their own personal power and wealth (in the Bill & Hillary Clinton mold) ride it as a fundraising and vote-garnering issue. They essentially manipulate the true believers but somehow never quite manage to deliver the policies that the contributors wanted. Delivering would sour the electorate and ruin their careers. Fighting hard and persevering, endears them with their marks.
Initially honest scientists find themselves corrupted in small steps, self-censoring any thoughts that call into question the party line, so as to maintain funding, then later actively “making stuff up” that is calculated to win grant money, all the while rationalizing that it is for a noble cause. Some have drifted away from science altogether into political advocacy.
Many sincere and earnest people are taken in by the whole spectacle and adhere to the philosophy like a pseudo-religion. In a time when faith in traditional religion has faded, there seems to be a God-shaped hole in their hearts that they fill with “fighting” climate change. This analogy to traditional religion holds to the extent of having doctrines of faith that it is heresy to “deny” and ritual sacrifices to perform such as sorting recycle that will subsequently be dumped in a landfill, but will somehow be seen as evidence that the believer is “saving The Planet”. Their motivation is generally not to build world socialism or support a corrupt politician. They have been duped. Their laudable selfless concern for the good of society has been used against them. Not wanting to admit that they have been wrong, they are extremely resistant to persuasion.
Desperate to have the “right” and “respectable” opinion, there are the hypocrites of society, who have always existed, pretending to be believers in the popular religion and fashionable opinion of the day. Wrong opinions could interfere with social status and climbing the economic ladder. They don’t care a whit about climate change, unless there’s a business opportunity in it.
No conspiracy. Just millions of individuals persuing their own incentives.
All puppets in the hands of the wizard behind the curtain. Follow the yellow brick road.
I wrote this as a kind of manifesto for why I’m NOT a conspiracy theorist. Of all the reasons why I’m told I’m wrong about my views on climate change, the most prevalent one is not that my scientific arguments are wrong, but that I must be wrong because millions of people can’t be involved in a conspiracy and they can’t all be wrong while supposedly I alone am right, (or a bunch of kooks on a “conspiracy theory web site”).
Yes, Robertvd, there are certainly many would-be puppeteers doing their best to influence events and encourage people to be duped. But that is different from saying that the whole thing is an elaborate conspiracy with one man behind the curtain. There are thousands or millions of parallel efforts going on. Different people are acting on different incentives, without directly communicating with each other. They just happen to be in an informal alliance based on having common interests.
Certainly there are quite a few “millionaires and billionaires” mining government subsidies who would not be pleased if their socialist allies were to have a final victory and take away all their ill-gotten gains. Much like the US, UK, France, and Soviet Union were allied in World War II, and the western powers actively helped the Soviets, that was because they had a common goal. As soon as that goal was achieved, we parted company and became enemies. The same is the case where the socialist/communists are pushing CAGW in the hopes of building a world government that they dominate, but the big business guys like the folks at GE are in it to maximize profits and minimize taxes.
The point that I think is most critical to remember, if we hope to change hearts and minds, is that the vast majority are just sincerely mistaken and are erring on the side of selfless concern for others. Taking that into consideration, we should do everything possible to avoid having them think that we are condemning them as enemies.
Indeed. The best predictor of peoples’ stance on climate change is their political affiliation. Pew survey It seems to me that the majority of the population understands that fighting CAGW requires more government. That makes Democrats willing to believe and makes Republicans skeptical.
You have to be really careful about how you frame issues. That said, I think it wouldn’t be hard to convince most Americans that CAGW is being used by socialists to promote world government. It seems apparent that the population already has some understanding of that.
The actual data shows the difference between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats on climate change is huge. There are many stories and articles that downplay the difference. Google tends to find those. DuckDuckGo is much less likely to turn up those stories. Two things occur to me:
1 – Google has been accused of filtering with a political bias. link
2 – Given the steady drumbeat of CAGW propaganda, it’s amazing that most Americans don’t think CAGW is the most important issue facing the nation, but they don’t. link
Yup! The same people who know nothing about money and can’t do math think Socialism and Global Warming are top of the agenda. They are usually people who have wormed their way into some government gravy taproot.
+10, Rich.
Well stated.
Which explains why:
* Many teacher unions are actively very pro-socialism.
* European Union and the United Nations are pro-socialism and have circulated “agreements” for nations to sign away their National prerogatives in favor of unelected bureaucrat socialist meddling.
* UNFCCC and the IPCC have admitted their whole “
global warming“, “climate disruption“, “climate change, the next climate buzz word is to transfer wealth.* Multiple countries are extinguishing sections of their capitalism/democratic functions in favor of socialist practices; e.g. healthcare.
A number of these countries are ignoring status reports regarding the massive increases in red-tape, bureaucratic levels, increasing rigidity along with failures to
i) maintain medical excellence. Let alone improve medical care.
ii) provide proper healthcare to those most in need of it.
iii) control costs.
iiii) hold irresponsible doctors or nurses accountable for failure.
* Oddball liberal progressives elitists from proposing 70% tax rates while threatening 100% tax rates for people who disagree with them.
* Ultra-rich progressives ar efunding many organizations and actions worldwide trying to destroy capitalist democracies in favor of socialist fantasy worlds.
Sure, all of these loons ignore 100+ years of socialist failures, all on their own and independently reach the same false beliefs…
On socialised health care, isn’t it odd that a system that can’t support decent doctors, hospitals and medicine thinks that it can support doctors,hospitals, medicine AND an enormous bureaucracy to run them?
Fortunately for everyone, the Universal Solution that solves all other problems, also solves global warming:
1) Higher taxes
2) Increased government regulatory power
3) Wealth transfers
Which is why all democratic countries are going right and countries stupid enough to try it like Venezuela are basket cases. The EU zone especially Germany will be the next to teeter on the edge as they have all sorts of interesting economics about to implode.
China must really be laughing watching all this unfold but don’t worry they will take steps in 2030 🙂
In other news: Water, Wet
I am encouraged by the pathetically small number of “stories,” links, tweets and Facebook posts. In today’s media, “460 news stories in 360 outlets” is really just one or two original stories copied and repeated by media outlets in a brief news burst, quickly forgotten. In terms of influence and staying power, this “story” scores practically zero.
I don’t mind the advent of socialism because I’m one of those who comes out top and bosses everyone around
Being one of the bosses isn’t that safe. Consider Stalin’s Purges. The higher you were in the Soviet Union, the more terrified you were of Stalin.
Consider also the Red Guards. If they got you in their sights, being a boss was no help.
The lefties who think they would fare well under communism are mostly deluding themselves.
Unless you are an extremely intelligent sociopath, communism eats everybody sooner or later.
There were two communists whose survival skills were remarkable, Chou Enlai and Andrei Gromyko. As far as I can tell, neither would be diagnosed as a psychopath.
The end goal is always the same. To impose the secular Utopian on humanity. Over the past century, the excuses have varied. In the beginning, the goal was to improve the wages of workers. If the workers owned the factories, then there would not be any greedy capitalist to steal their labor “excess”.
After it became undeniable how many tens of millions of his own citizens had died under Stalin, socialists retreated and regrouped. The newly packaged socialism was far more about “fairness”, “diversity and inclusion” than about economics. But the overall goal is still the same: to take as much out of the private sphere and put it in the hands of those in charge. And those things start with the economy, where government will take from as many people as possible and spread it around to purchase support. But worse, it seized the ability to decide what is true and what is false, what may be spoken and what must never be said. In the end, it will attempt to define truth itself, and it will always do so in ways that are advantageous to its power.
Socialism is a means to an end: to create the secular Utopia, no matter how many people must suffer and died to bring it about.
“…[socialism] touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological
gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with
hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government;
the working class is enslaved in the name of the work ing class; the
complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate
liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available;
the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and
the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the
repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial
influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free
expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become
the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most
scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance.
Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything.
It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the
future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent
and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It
pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to
pretend nothing.
“Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave
as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get
along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they
must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them
to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact,
individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the
system.”
from:
Václav Havel: The Power of the Powerless (October 1978)
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/1979/01/the-power-of-the-powerless.pdf
… but “diversity and inclusion” demands that we have both rich and poor.
Another important point to observe is that the groups pushing social change are very rarely stakeholders in the areas being changed. These people are outsiders insisting on change for the benefit of an apparently oppressed third party.
Take Marx. He spoke of the workers and the factory owners, yet was neither. He, an outsider, wanted to change the entire worker/owner relationship. Nominally this would have been a Good Thing(tm) but it is important to remember that the actual risk to Marx in this experiment was minimal.
If the changes worked he would be able to step in as one of the heroes of the revolution and had the grateful ex workers help wash the blood of change off his feet. If the changes ended up completely destroying the system and leaving thousands if not millions drastically worse off, well, not really his problem. It wasn’t going to be HIS factory or HIS job that was destroyed now was it.
Have a very careful look at the people pushing for ‘social reform’ the loudest and at what they are actually willing to risk if the entire plan goes pear shaped. I put to you that you will rarely find socialist reformers actually risking their careers or lifestyles. I put to you that these are the sort of people who don’t necessarily want a ‘better world’ but more a ‘different world’ where they are closer to being in charge.
Its sort of ironic that if I espoused National Socialism for the good of the planrt I would be rightly pilloried. Why isnt socialism seen in rhe same light as national socialism as they are both murdering cheeks of the same butthole.
“a fundamental reorientation of human values, equity, behavior, institutions, economies, and technologies”
Just what I’ve been looking for (NOT!) . . . and who, pray tell, will appointed as world czar to oversee this transition?
I seem to recall that the last time we faced such a serious threat, it came from a little strutting man with a toothbrush mustache that enthralled a nation and was directly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of humans in carrying out his agenda.
Ain’t that lush – power without responsibility.
As the song goes ‘Everybody Wants To Rule The World’
And as some misguided folks did not-so-long ago, why not kill all the cows – that’ll fend off the evil badness.
Apart from being Real Cows, what might they metaphoric for?
No matter that, cow killing certainly on the agenda now and worked a treat last time it was tried….
I’m sure an angry utburst of Computer Code will settle any unease and lead us all to Utopia.
(Won’t be a Land of Milk and Honey though will it? No milk see? We killed the cows to get there)
“Humanity’s challenge then is to influence the dynamical properties of the Earth System in such a way that the emerging unstable conditions in the zone between the Holocene and a very hot state become a de facto stable intermediate state (Stabilized Earth) (Fig. 2). This requires that humans take deliberate, integral, and adaptive steps to reduce dangerous impacts on the Earth System, effectively monitoring and changing behavior to form feedback loops that stabilize this intermediate state.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
There are two fundamentals not understood by these authors.
(1) There is a difference between science and management, intertwined that they are.
(2) There are no value judgements in science, but is a judge process not a rule maker.
Therefore, they have lost their credibility and humanity will suffer for it and blame NAS and their cohorts whatever the climate may bring. They are the “Tipping Cascades.”
Sigma Xi, the National Research Honor Society who publishes American Scientist, mostly with good articles, just had this in their last issue. They have recently joined in the crusade with AAAS. “To Reduce Climate Change, Sigma Xi calls Calls for Support of Climate Scientists, Global Cooperation, and Investments in Research.” “At the meeting [November 2017], the Society’s board of directors agreed to reaffirm its commitment to finding a solution.” etc., etc. Searching either American Scientist or Sigma Xi should bring up this.
As an emeritus member, not affiliated with any chapter, I may have missed something, but do not know of any discussion with the membership. I have written the ‘leadership’ and I have posted on this before and will later with more details. It is an embarrassment to be a member of a society with such a crass board of directors. The worst thing would be that some don’t really believe it, but think it necessary for their job/profession to survive. However, they also push for “…policies and investments that enable technological solutions to be developed and deployed.” Some seem deluded into the God syndrome and think there is such a thing as a “Communication Science.”
Okay, this article was very annoying, from the very beginning, for two reasons:
(1) It speaks of a particular paper, and NEVER gives an exact reference to what paper is being talked about, nor a link to that paper, which is quite clearly available.
(2) It’s first link to the DAILY CALLER article leads to a website that immediately pops up a request to turn off my ad blocker or subscribe, in order to proceed any further.
Here’s a link to the article referenced in the story:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
As for turning off my ad blocker or subscribing, … I say to the DAILY CALLER (as I do to all websites that beg me to turn off my ad blocker), … well, … it wouldn’t be dignified to say it here, but it’s something that one does to oneself.
“It’s” = “Its” … grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Attempting to digest this paper, I never get the feeling of any factual traction whatsoever.
I see speculation, loosely tied to automatic assumptions, based on questionable data, dressed up in pretty pictures, to scare people needlessly, written by some guys who are academically savvy in creating tasty word salad.
1st of all, any scientist claiming that human emissions are going to push Earth climate into a hothouse climate probably isn’t even qualified to bag my groceries.
2nd, can we all just agree that a one world government is a fantastic idea, but only if I’m in charge.
From the abstract. “Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.”
I want a “DECARBONIZATION” tee shirt to add to my collection. I could do with fewer trucks going by and see hauling loads of shingles on a bicycle.
And this is why we are so stiff-necked about all of this
Fig. 1 in their paper which would look good on the stained glass on the front of their church. This would be so funny if it was not so serious. Churches should worry, government intrusion. Carousel is appropriate in the link.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,……”
Maybe if we organize around that idea and register “Climate Change” with the state as a de facto religion, then Congress would not be allowed to enact climate laws!
Climate Change is unstoppable.
To believe otherwise, is to believe a politician can make a rainy day .. sunny.
In the beginning of the AGW narrative those that pointed out it is nothing more than veiled propaganda with the ultimate goal of One World Government were called “conspiracy theorists”. Even WUWT has some that discount the “wealth redistribution” aspect of AGW as such and feel bringing it up is hurting science and making a laughing stock out of skeptics. “Stick with science” is their meme. As time passed some of AGW advocates in positions of power and authority made public statements saying AGW was not about temperature but about wealth redistribution. Obama specifically cited “wealth redistribution” as one of the goals of his administration during his inaugural speech. Now we have members of Congress openly demanding we replace Capitalism with Socialism and using AGW as their platform of change. Either the people of America wake up or they will get swallowed by the conspiracy theory come alive.
I wish it were a hothouse. I’m freezing my ass off. I detest these people and their ilk.
I wonder if “reorientation” of the planet involves the maximum number of inhabitants the planet can “sustain” as stated by DeepGreen to be 500,000,000? I wonder how they will get to that divine number?
Always was.
Pretty much the entire environmental movement was hijacked in the seventies.
As Nationalism is spreading across the world and the centre left wiped out in Europe it’s hardly likely to happen.
This source says the article was 4th most popular:
https://www.sciencealert.com/top-10-most-popular-scientific-papers-in-2018-altmetric
We seriously need to keep hammering away at two simple points.
1. The 2°C limit was plucked out of the air by Schellnhuber, on his own admission, because politicians like a nice simple narrative for the sheeple. Neither it nor its kid brother, 1.5°C, have any special significance in physics.
2. What, precisely, is the mysterious “pre-industrial figure” that we are measuring this 2° or 1.5° limit against? 14.5°C. 14°? 13.2°? The depths of the LIA? The peak of the MWP? If nobody can put a figure on it AND provide some sort of scientific evidence to support both figures then all we are getting is “flannel”
Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute was, according to Paul Gosselin’s notrickszone blog, here — http://notrickszone.com/2018/12/15/climate-of-confusion-nasa-pik-scientist-confirm-global-temperature-has-fallen-0-2c-since-1850/ — caught at a meeting of a parliamentary committee admitting that global temperature had actually fallen by 0.2°C since 1850.
And he gets away with it!