Climate hysterics skyrocket

Increasingly absurd disaster rhetoric is consistently contradicted by climate and weather reality

Paul Driessen

Call it climate one-upmanship. It seems everyone has to outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric.

The “climate crisis” is the “existential threat of our time,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must “end the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.”

Former California Governor Jerry Brown solemnly intoned that America has “an enemy, though different, but perhaps very much devastating in a similar way” as the Nazis in World War II.

Not to be outdone, two PhDs writing in Psychology Today declared that “the human race faces extinction” if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. And yet “even people who experience extreme weather events often still refuse to report the experiences as a manifestation of climate change.” Psychologists, they lament, “have never had to face denial on this scale before.”

Then there’s Oxford University doctoral candidate Samuel Miller-McDonald. He’s convinced the only thing that could save people and planet from cataclysmic climate change is cataclysmic nuclear war that “shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction.”

All this headline-grabbing gloom and doom, however, is backed up by little more than computer models, obstinate assertions that the science is settled, and a steady litany of claims that temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts et cetera are unprecedented, worse than ever before, and due to fossil fuels.

And on the basis of these hysterics, we are supposed to give up the carbon-based fuels that provide over 80% of US and global energy, gladly reduce our living standards – and put our jobs and economy at the mercy of expensive, unreliable, weather dependent, pseudo-renewable wind, solar and biofuel energy.

As in any civil or criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the accusers and prosecutors who want to sentence fossil fuels to oblivion. They need to provide more than blood-curdling charges, opening statements and summations. They need to provide convincing real-world evidence to prove their case.

They have refused to do so. They ignore the way rising atmospheric carbon-dioxide is spurring plant growth and greening the planet. They blame every extreme weather event on fossil fuel emissions, but cannot explain the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age or extreme weather events decades or centuries ago – or why we have had fewer extreme weather events in recent decades. They simply resort to trial in media and other forums where they can exclude exculpatory evidence, bar any case for the fossil fuel defense, and prevent any cross-examination of their witnesses, assertions and make-believe evidence.

Climate models are not evidence. At best, they offer scenarios of what might happen if the assumptions on which they are based turn out to be correct. However, the average prediction by 102 models is now a full degree F (0.55 C) above what satellites are actually measuring. Models that cannot be confirmed by actual observations are of little value and certainly should not be a basis for vital energy policy making.

The alarmist mantra seems to be: If models and reality don’t agree, reality must be wrong.

In fact, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed to 405 parts per million (0.0405% of Earth’s atmosphere), except for short-term temperature spikes during El Niño ocean warming events, there has been very little planetary warming since 1998; nothing to suggest chaos or runaway temperatures.

Claims that tornadoes have gotten more frequent and intense are obliterated by actual evidence. NOAA records show that from 1954 to 1985 an average of 56 F3 to F5 tornadoes struck the USA each year – but from 1985 to 2017 there were only 34 per year on average. And in 2018, for the first time in modern history, not a single “violent” twister touched down in the United States.

Harvey was the first major (category 3-5) hurricane to make US landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the 1860s. (If rising CO2 levels are to blame for Harvey, Irma and other extreme weather events, shouldn’t they also be credited for this hurricane drought?)

Droughts differ little from historic trends and cycles – and the Dust Bowl, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other ancient dry spells were long and destructive. Moreover, modern agricultural and drip irrigation technologies enable farmers to deal with droughts far better than they ever could in the past.

Forest fires are fewer than in the recent past – and largely due to failure to remove hundreds of millions of dead and diseased trees that provide ready tinder for massive conflagrations.

Arctic and Antarctic ice are largely within “normal” or “cyclical” levels for the past several centuries – and snow surface temperatures in the East Antarctic Plateau regularly reach -90 °C (-130 F) or lower. Average Antarctic temperatures would have to rise some 20-85 degrees F year-round for all its land ice to melt and cause oceans to rise at faster than their current 7-12 inches per century pace.

In fact, the world’s oceans have risen over 400 feet since the last Pleistocene glaciers melted. (That’s how much water those mile-high Ice Age glaciers took out of the oceans!) Sea level rise paused during the Little Ice Age but kicked in again the past century or so. Meanwhile, retreating glaciers reveal long-lost forests, coins, corpses and other artifacts – proving those glaciers have come and gone many times.

Pacific islands will not be covered by rising seas anytime soon, at 7-12 inches per century, and because corals and atolls grow as seas rise. Land subsidence also plays a big role in perceived sea level rise – and US naval bases are safe from sea level rise, though maybe not from local land subsidence.

The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922.

Moreover, explorers wrote about the cyclical absence of Arctic ice long before that. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintock wrote in 1860. “I was here at this time in [mid] 1854 – still frozen up – and doubts were entertained as to the possibility of escape.”

Coral bleaching? That too has many causes – few having anything to do with manmade global warming – and the reefs generally return quickly to their former glory as corals adopt new zooxanthellae.

On and on it goes – with more scare stories daily, more attempts to blame humans and fossil fuels for nearly every interesting or as-yet-unexplained natural phenomenon, weather event or climate fluctuation. And yet countering the manmade climate apocalypse narrative is increasingly difficult – in large part because the $2-trillion-per-year climate “science” and “renewable” energy industry works vigorously to suppress such evidence and discussion … and is aided and abetted by its media and political allies.

Thus we have Chuck Todd, who brought an entire panel of alarmist climate “experts” to a recent episode of Meet the Press. He helped them expound ad nauseam on the alleged “existential threat of our time” – but made it clear that he was not going to give even one minute to experts on the other side.

“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it,” Todd proclaimed. “The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.” The only thing left to discuss, from their perspective was “solutions” – most of which would hugely benefit them and their cohorts, politically and financially.

Regular folks in developed and developing countries alike see this politicized, money-driven kangaroo court process for what it is. They also know that unproven, exaggerated and fabricated climate scares must be balanced against their having to give up (or never having) reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy. That is why we have “dangerous manmade climate change” denial on this scale.

That is why we must get the facts out by other means. It is why we must confront Congress, media people and the Trump Administration, and demand that they address these realities, hold debates, revisit the CO2 Endangerment Finding – and stop calling for an end to fossil fuels and modern living standards before we actually have an honest, robust assessment of supposedly “settled” climate science.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

104 thoughts on “Climate hysterics skyrocket

  1. Good post!!!
    It’s Monday, which means it’s “coral bleaching day” for the MSM. Tuesday might well be “catastrophic forest fire” day!!!

    • Meanwhile, here in Montreal, we just set a 100 year record for the coldest temperature ever recorded when combined with a snowstorm. Funny how the talk of climate change and global warming seems to disappear when we have these inconvenient weather phenomena .

      • The warming is so extreme that millions of people in the East may freeze to death if not for furnaces and heaters. Stop using fossil fuels now!

      • Proof positive of Global Warming…..ahh…Climate Change…..ahh… Climate Disruption…aaah its proof!

      • This is the usual winter lull… We can count on our media to drown us in man-made-global-warming propaganda as soon as the weather warms, and especially if the Montréal F1 Grand Prix week-end is warm and sunny.

    • “We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it,” Todd proclaimed. “The Earth is getting hotter…”

      On alternating Wednesday’s when April is waning and August is on the horizon. Chuck Todd suffers from CO2 asphyxiation because he has his head turned to the left and stuck up his arse.

    • Excellent summary.

      As a proud ‘denier’ I notice that most if not all the climate doomsayers refuse to give up THEIR vehicles, be they SUVs or ordinary cars. Nor do they stop flying.

      Surely if this was a real crisis they would?
      They don’t. So it’s not a real crisis. Case closed.

  2. As the Solar minimum starts to bite, the more hysterical the true believers in cAGW (aka Climate Change™) will become — nothing worse than a religious doctrine being overturned by natural events.

    • Well, what they will ACTUALLY do, is simply blame whatever DOES happen on C02, and say that they said so all along.

      See, past behavior is the best barometer of future behavior. And it’s not like a hive-mind is going to think of anything new.

    • I agree – this was posted recently.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/12/the-middle-east-africa-and-asia-now-drive-nearly-all-global-energy-consumption-growth/#comment-2586574

      The leaders of the warmest movement will feel the need to double-down on their failed predictions of runaway global warming and more extreme weather.

      Their followers, the warmest minions, will be in despair because it is absolutely clear that fossil fuels are not going anywhere, and will continue to comprise 85% of global primary energy for the foreseeable future.

      The despair of the minions will approach biblical proportions:
      “There will be a great wailing, and a tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth.”

      The extreme emotions wasted on blatant global warming fraud are regrettable, but there is no cure for stupid. The warmest minions will continue to suffer from their self-inflicted injuries.

    • They will say as they do now that cold and big dumps of snow is proof of AGW and shift their pathetic doomsday predictions 50 or more years into the future to guarrantee what they REALLY care about which is keeping their snouts in that 2 trillion a year gravy troff

      • What are you rabbiting on about? What 2 trillion a year gravy trough? Where is your evidence for such an absurd accusation? I thought this was supposed to be a serious site debating whether AGW is occurring or not…

          • Explain. Someonevmakes a statement. That statement is based on evidence – or it can be construed as hypotheticsl or a lie. Show me the evidence.

          • Nope. Typing on my new Tablet 🙂
            Seriously, though, WUWT is becoming overrun by political dogma instead of being focused on the science of not if AGW is occurring – which is now a given – but to what extent it is impacting climate change.

  3. ‘Two PhDs writing in Psychology Today declared that “the human race faces extinction” ‘.
    They are right, it probably will face extinction at some time in the distant future, but it sure as hell won’t be through burning fossil fuels

    • No it wont because we are the seeds of our universe, and will be too dispersed throughout it and others to ever become extinct.

      I Will wager no more than 100 billion humans ever spend a full life on earth.
      Yet eventually 100s of billions will exist.

      • Well, you might want to check some before making a wager – seems we are well over 100 billion already. But I wonder what you mean by “a full life” – that’s kind of like “true love” , only one in a million might experience that.

    • Does it ever occur to these people what would happen to the human race if we banned fossil fuels? It isn’t just Western civilisation which is dependent on electricity production and motorised forms of transport: what would happen to medical supplies for developing countries if they had to be transported by unrefrigerated sailing ships ?

      • Susan,
        But isn’t that part of the feature of CAGW – and its effects?
        Lots – and lots – of folk will die.

        don’t the believers seek – per agenda 21 or 2030 or their latest misanthropic edict – a global population more than 90% less than the present 7,678,692,013 per World Pop Clock, 2230z 21 January 2019.
        Say 500 million.

        Tough for most of us not part of the nomenklatura.

        Auto

      • No one will have to worry about medicine, because most people in the world will freeze to death or starve to death or die in the struggle for the little food and fuel remaining…because billions starving slowly to death will not just sit home waiting to die.
        With no fossil fuels, there will be no raw materials, not people getting to work, no economy…there will be a chaotic worldwide riot to survive.
        The first to die though, would likely be the people who caused it, and then the fossil fuels will once again be used and that will be that.

      • Possibly you are overlooking the whole of our 21 century lifestyle which is underpinned by hydrocarbons as a source for the chemicals we are addicted to. Those all go into making solar pannels and wind towers but none come out. You plant one seed to reap many.

        • Who is talking about the complete banning of fossil fuels? Can you give me some quotes/solid evidence to back up this statement?
          Also, who is talking about unrefrigerated sailing ships transporting medical supplies in developing countries – this presupposes that they are unable to use solar or wind power on these vessels. Can you also send me evidence supporting your assertion?

          • Ivan,

            You must live in a big cave since there have been proposals to convert to 100% renewables by 2040 and such dates, this clearly means elimination of “fossil Fuels”. It is happening in California and proposed in Washington state.

            There have been proposals in Congress already.

      • As will all those who don’t comment here. Just not from the doomsday cult of CAGW and their silly prophecies.

  4. There’s a world war going on by means of intellectual terrorism.
    Akin a computer virus, malicious information crafted specifically to exploit vulnerabilities and corrupt the entire system.
    Question: Who calls the shots ?

    • I agree.

      The Left wing have become well meaning, aggressive anarchists.

      They think they are on the side of good, when in reality they are on the side of chaos.

      To push ideas that are scientifically, economically, and engineeringly incorrect they have corrupted our institutions, divided the country.

      The “CAGW crisis” is the excuse they use to corrupt the legal system.

      • I’m sure the legal system has been corrupted in every country throughout all of history for varied reasons. It’s not a new idea.

        • There’s some level of corruption in any human institution, just usually not to the point of complete dysfunction.

    • I wondered about this also. There is no special alert on their website to indicate they are closed. Like many of these institutions, money flows into them through various channels and not necessarily directly from the federal government. My guess is that its affiliation with Columbia University provides a buffer.

      There is contact information if anyone should like to call them, although they are likely on holiday today: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/

  5. The scientific consensus has been, for quite a long time, that life begins at conception. Advances in biological knowledge across recent decades only reinforces this, as we are able to see more and more clearly how, quite soon after fertilization, the zygote meets the general principles of “life.” We all learned this in middle school. It is on Wikipedia. Yet, we use political obfuscation and a change of topic, from killing an innocent life without due process, to a matter of “reproductive rights,” and so we have a million deaths per year in the USA.

    What is worse is that, if we figure life expectancy is 75 years, that would be 75 million life-years lost each year.

    This is science. No one on the “left” is up in arms about these genuine lives. Not hypothetical climate refugees.

    The Progs are using “science” to legitimize their preferred policies. Which, as often noted, are really designed to give them money and power.

    • I agree with a portion of your concern, however it would carry a lot more credibility if people who felt likewise would also advocate for better access to, and education about, birth control, however just the opposite is typically the case. Just like “climate activism” has been revealed as a front for controlling the behavior of others (lack of a push for nuclear power being a good example), similarly concern for unborn life also comes with a whole basket of behavior controls that reveal its advocates are just another group of would-be oppressors.

      • There is literally nobody in the Western world for whom “better access” to birth control will make a whit of difference. Just who are these people without access to birth control??? Do you know a single one of them?

        If someone accidentally takes a life, they are held responsible. But if someone accidentally creates a life — a human child — you think it’s oppression that they not be allowed to kill the child.

        • Chunk strikes me as one of those people who believe that he/she/it should be allowed to do anything he/she/it wants, and anyone who says otherwise is an evil oppressor.

      • If you could set your biases aside for a moment, you would discover that those opposed to abortion are all over the map when it comes to birth control.
        It’s one of the lies of the left, that everyone who is opposed to abortion is a Christian fundamentalist.

        Regardless, there are few if any people living in the first world, who don’t know all about birth control. Information regarding it is everywhere. Even in the less developed world, information is widely available as is birth control itself.

        BTW, I just love how you reveal yourself as an ignorant bigot in your final sentence.

      • The data show a relation between liberalization of BC access and abortion.

        Example:
        Duenas et al. Contraception 83 (2011) 82–87:

        “Background: This study was designed to acquire information about the use of contraceptive methods in order to reduce the number of
        elective abortions.
        Study Design: Since 1997, representative samples of Spanish women of childbearing potential (15–49 years) have been surveyed by the Daphne Team every 2 years to gather data of contraceptive methods used.

        Results: During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

        Conclusions: The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.”

    • I agree.
      I dislike abortion.
      I am male – so will never have to make that decision. Ever.

      That said, for what it is worth, I support a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion – up to [about] 22 weeks gestation.
      Fuzzy – yes. For sure.

      Many [most? – perhaps.] will disagree with much of this.
      Tough – it’s my belief, feeling. Etc.
      And the world is not perfect. Ever.

      Auto

      (A reply to your comment has been trashed, gotten waaaay of topic on this) MOD

  6. Is there any place on Earth not beset with these numpties? They are a vicious plague of biting midges.

  7. “Then there’s Oxford University doctoral candidate Samuel Miller-McDonald. He’s convinced the only thing that could save people and planet from cataclysmic climate change is cataclysmic nuclear war that “shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction.”

    Am I correct in interpreting this remark as meaning that setting off vast numbers of nuclear bombs which would spread radiation and other pollutants across the globe (as well as incidentally killing off vast numbers of actual people) is better for us than another degree rise in the global temperature?

    So nuclear energy with well regulated reactors and careful treatment of waste is bad, but nuclear bombs are good because they’ll shut down our civilization.

    I’m glad these people have our best interests at heart. I’d hate to see what they’d be proposing if they didn’t.

    • There is the Lunatic Left, and then there are Barking at the Moon, foamy-mouth howling mad Lunatic Leftists like Samuel Miller-McDonald. Once the mind starts down the path towards the Leftist Hell, there are only deeper levels of insanity ahead.

      • But these particular Barking at the Moon, foamy-mouth howling mad Lunatics are PHD’s and university teachers. I can’t fathom how they got into those positions of authority, but they seriously should not be there.

        • Because most of the administrators these days are Barking at the Moon, foamy-mouth howling mad Lunatics as well.

        • The growing number of “…Barking at the Moon, foamy-mouth howling mad (leftist) Lunatics…” is the result of tribalism in the universities. The first infiltrators had to be a bit more subdued, but after decades of training and acquiring more of their own, they pretty much run the institutions of ‘higher’ learning now. In those Ivy covered walls, protected from reality, they can be as foamy-mouthed crazy as the want and still be promoted; indeed…rewarded!

          This should not be a surprise. They told us more than 60 years ago that they were going to do exactly what they have done. The US is a polarized nation not because conservatism and the right have moved further to the right. Indeed, the right has moved to the left, but the left has moved much further to the left. The division in America is between neutral and mildly left philosophies and a growing, extremely-left philosophy! Reagan was probably the last conservative politician to leave Washington D. C. There is no one there today that deserves that description. Most Republicans today are to the left of Democratic President Kennedy.

  8. Driessen writes good essays.
    However, one suggestion, or maybe it was a typo.
    He wrote “….trial in media…”
    Should it not be …trial by media..”?

  9. Good post, Paul. Looks like climate change hysterics skyrocket in lockstep with Trump derangement syndrome. There are bigger picture cultural changes underway here and they don’t look good. How can you say, sure, the Earth is greening up due to increased CO2, but it just has to end badly? Wattsupwiththat is a refuge for clear-thinkers, but its a long fight we’re in and perhaps only the onset of a glacial cycle will settle the issue.

    • What makes you think a glacial cycle would settle anything? The alarmists shifted to ‘climate change’ long ago as a hedge against precisely this kind of event. They will simply claim that some people in the past had a sign wrong in a modeled equation or whatever and that the new cooling cycle is in fact caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide, just as they said all along and it’s even worse that we thought.

      • CephusO, I wasn’t thinking any really deep thoughts about them realizing reality has set in, I was just hoping that the cold would freeze their nuts off, you know, like an oak tree (I included this last just to get by the moderator).

  10. ‘The “climate crisis” is the “existential threat of our time,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must “end the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.”’

    My guess is Nancy Pelosi couldn’t name three greenhouse gases if it meant the firing squad.

    • I’ve not met one useful idiot who could even guess the actual percentage of CO2 in the air despite saturation media coverage of the evils of this trace gas – they only have to learn the talking points to join the club and that’s as much effort as they’re prepared to put into it. As to 3 GHG’s, ask them what the number one is and all I ever get from them is CO2. Absolutely clueless about water, clueless that gasses are refrigerants, basically just clueless and willfully so.

  11. If the “climate crisis” was the “existential threat of our time”, we have the solution. Replace all fossil fuel plants with nuclear plants. Problem solved. Since that is not being done, it shows there is no crisis.

    Happily living with no heat in the Bahamas.

    • That’s right. We have a solution to the the CO2 question, it is nuclear power. The Alarmists refuse to avail themselves of this method even though it is available, well understood, is cheaper than renewables, is politically acceptable to conservatives, and does not require the economies of the world to be turned upside down to fix the CO2 “problem”.

      All this says even the Alarmists don’t really think CO2 is an existential threat to humanity. They are just telling scary stories for one reason or another.

      Stupidity in positions of power is the real threat to humanity.

  12. The reason warmists won’t debate or show the proof of their “science” is because they cannot and they know it. Without media support they would be ignored. The real question is why hasn’t anyone brought the media to accountability? Trump made a good start with “fake news” but it goes much deeper than that. Who owns and pays the media to continue this charade?

  13. Kinda’ reminds me of those old Westerns.
    A guy in jail and a few with an agenda incite the mob to have a necktie party to deny him a lawful and fair trial.

    Those with an agenda have used “Global Warming” to incite the mob to abandon reason and observation and debate so they go along with their proposals to “Save the Whales”. (“Save the Whales” – Figure of Speech – part for the whole.)
    Those proposals always include surrendering freedoms and cash and authority to those who very skilled at manipulating the mob.

    “Everything you think, do and say is in the swill you’re fed today…”

  14. Never before have so many believed in so much for so long based on so little. (My apologies to Winston Churchill. I’m sure he would have said it if were still around.)

  15. If CO2 is an existential threat, it is imperative to make China and India quit emitting CO2. China already emits more CO2 than America and the EU combined. link We’re all going to die if they continue to increase their emissions. That’s what existential means isn’t it?

    ‘They’ are demanding that we curb our CO2 emissions. ‘They’ say nothing about other folks’ emissions. ‘They’ always demand that we change our behavior because of stuff that happens in other places. For example, when ‘they’ demonstrate against the evil patriarchy, they do not demand women’s rights for Saudi Arabia where women actually are oppressed. They demonstrate against America where, quite frankly, women have never had it so good in the whole history of humanity.

    ‘They’ don’t actually believe that CO2 emissions are an existential threat, otherwise they would be freaked out by all emissions, not just those occurring in America.

  16. About 180 quotes of climate catastrophe narrative categorised by type and authority source, here:
    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/footnotes1.pdf
    As Paul implies the more emotive narratives are more likely to get better propagation over time, causing the ‘certainty of imminent global catastrophe’ to be an emergent theme.
    (the file is the common footnotes file to two posts on the catastrophe narrative over at Climate Etc)

  17. MODS!
    I made a comment about 20 minutes ago that hasn’t shown up. Perhaps I made a Typo in my name or email address or I used auto-bit-bin phrase.
    (In the context on Old Westerns, I made reference to what mobs do to those in jail.)

    PS What is a reasonable amount of time to bring a “missing” comment to a mods attention?

  18. There is the science and then there are the politics.

    2/3’s of the political class in the US has bought into senseless climate alarmism. That number includes many Republican’s riding this hobby horse if they see advantage for their constituencies. Turning this tide before the economics bite hard will be difficult but necessary. If we fail at that we will have have to hold on until serious consequences become apparent.

    Energy/Climate policy needs to become a serious political issue in the US. At the moment we seem able to hold the door on the worst but just barely and not everywhere. A sharpening of the politics is required.

  19. “Thus we have Chuck Todd, who brought an entire panel of alarmist climate “experts” to a recent episode of Meet the Press. “

    Dr Spencer’s blog post about MTP’s Chuck Todd lacking a brain yet babbling on endlessly when he should shut up was spot on. But then Chuck Todd is paid to be the Useful Idiot for the Left and their socialist agenda. If he didn’t, then the Network and MTP producers would find someone who would babble on and willfully deceive their audience. If Mr Todd woke up tomorrow and had an on-air mea culpa moment of conscience and told the truth on the climate hysteria, he’d be gone and replaced. If not Chuck Todd, then the Left would easily find someone else to get his 7-figure annual salary.

    We are in a strange time now, where historically it was the 1st Amendment and a Free Press that stopped extremism, but now the US Left’s agenda to drive the US into socialism and destroy capitalism has never been clearer. The calls from the Left (and some prominent Democrats) to gut the first two amendments of the Bill of Rights has never been louder or clearer.

    The legacy media outlets of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR have in every way simply become controlled by Liberal interests and in effect are propaganda outlets for the Left. Chuck Todd’s refusal to allow informed expert climate alarmism skeptics critique the grotesque fear-mongering and baby-ish babbling by his guests on his MTP climate segment is just one example of hundreds that have occurred in the last few years. We see in the NY Times – the Grey Lady is regularly running front page “news stories” that are little more some facts, opinion, and unverified claims woven together without any balance or journalistic standards for verification. As such, even the Left understands the NYT has becoming nothing anymore but an outlet for the Democratic Party’s PR machine. And Democrats today, by their own admission, have become largely of socialist ideology with a clear goal to throttle capitalism.

    This is all in the Socialists’ quest for total power and destruction of the US constitution’s written meaning by turning it into a “living” constitution, one that can mean anything they want, which renders it meaningless as a check-on government power by any standard of intellectual honesty. The long stated desire of Democrat’s to turn the constitution into a “living” document is what has animated their histrionics at Senate’s Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. After Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the Left (and the some prominent Democrats in Congress) have openly stated a desire to pack 2 additional SCOTUS seats when a Democratic Party President takes over the WH again, thus being able to regain a Liberal SCOTUS majority to push through the Left’s agenda via the courts — things they could never get through Congress.

    Now the very real likelihood of a conservative in RBG’s seat would make for a 6-3 conservative:liberal bench. That would make that packing an expanded court with progressive’s politically impossible, as even the hardcore Leftists realize the American public would not put up with adding four new justices to SCOTUS in such an obvious power grab.

    A further complication for the Climate Hustlers is of course startup internet-only News and Opinion Outlets, and the rise of conservative-run organizations like Tom Fenton’s Judicial Watch, CFACT, Brietbart. An open, free internet with media outlets the Left can’t control has become the problem the Left did not foresee 25 years ago when the Climate Scam was being cranked up in the mid-1990’s. They assumed since they controlled the major networks, major newspapers, and academic control of the training of new (Liberals-only) journalists via journalism schools, they could easily walk-push the US public into accepting their socialism. And with control of a dumbed-down (Common Core) US primary education system, the bad science of Climate Change would be easily promoted to the public using fear mongering and incessant propaganda.

    In the US in the mid 90’s, Rupert Murdoch shrewdly understood the business opportunity such a left-ward political tack of the 3 major networks and CNN would mean for a conservative news network. His 1996 start-up FoxNews now regularly beats the pants-off all of them in ratings. (As an aside: What is not talked of enough is one key component of the rise of FoxNews and outlets like Breitbart News is the Left’s barely hidden hatred of Christianity and practicing Christians in general. The Leftist media’s open atheism and/or anti-Chritianity bent is their biggest liability with middle America and one a liability they cannot easily hide.)

    The Left has now come to accept FoxNews as an equal in the marketplace, but make no mistake, they are working hard through Rupert Murdoch’s sons to destroy FoxNews as a conservative outlet from within. They succeeded in using the #metoo hysteria to take down Roger Ailes, who built and ran FoxNews for Murdoch, and also their star opinion host Bill O’Reilly. If they succeed in alienating FoxNews’ conservative viewers, they’ll only create a new major media business opportunity for the next Rupert to fill. But the Left does have a plan for that.

    Under Obama, the Left did have a plan for killing off new media startups with the false flag name of “Net Neutrality.” Obama’s forceful push to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler at the FCC to impose the 1930’s telecom rules of a Title II government control regime on internet providers under the guise of “net neutrality” was their gambit. That is now dead, at least as long as we have a Republican president, and thus honest men and women at the FCC. The Left at first embraced the wild, wild west of internet start-ups and freedoms. Now they clearly see it as a major obstacle to their ability to “gas light” the American public with their climate propaganda.

    While problems of malevolent foreign actors (Russia, China) manipulating social media my continue to rise, the impact is greatly overblown on purpose by the Left. They can’t get past it simply because their felon nominee lost the 2016 election for President. Foreign state-actor social media manipulation of US opinion claims are going to continue to be exploited by the Left as justification for stricter internet regulation in their broader effort to stifle free speech. And if we allow the Left enough rope in this regards, the Left’s free speech government-sponsored lynching parties will eventually come for internet-based blogs like Anthony’s WUWT here and Mr Driessen’s CFACT on-line publications.

    • I don’t believe that all the people that watch Todd were persuaded by the fact that he isn’t going to allow dissenters on his program. There are those simple people that ask “Why not”? Humiliate them in front of us, if you can, if you can’t, I’ll go watch a different show.

      • The Left knows it does not have to convince 90% or 80% or 70% or 60% of voters. In pure Democracy 51% will do by their reckoning. And they’ll use Democracy’s weakness it grab the reins of power and then change the rules to hold it. Just as they did in California and Venezuela.
        Thus they hate the US constitution’s design to prevent such tyranny.

        Which is why they absolutely hate the Electoral College process to install the US President. And that Wyoming, population 0.58 Million people, has the same number of US Senators as California at population 40 million.

    • We are in a strange time now, where historically it was the 1st Amendment and a Free Press that stopped extremism, but now the US Left’s agenda to drive the US into socialism and destroy capitalism has never been clearer. The calls from the Left (and some prominent Democrats) to gut the first two amendments of the Bill of Rights has never been louder or clearer……

      ….This is all in the Socialists’ quest for total power and destruction of the US constitution’s written meaning by turning it into a “living” constitution, one that can mean anything they want, which renders it meaningless as a check-on government power by any standard of intellectual honesty.

      Well said.
      Imagine playing a board game where the written rules were “living”? When it’s my turn I get to decide what the rule writers really meant depending on what advances my chance of winning?

      • You do realise that what you apply to the ‘Socialists’ can equally be applied to Trump?
        I thank God every day that the Dems under Nancy won back the House to preserve and protect the Constitution and to keep a power-grabbing US President in check.

  20. I have noticed it lately, they have ramped it up again, hoping to get some free money, err, climate action, look at the YT vids every day chanting climate change, it is hilarious, they are so desperate.

    • Never had drought in Mali before now, Ivan? Standard warmist claptrap. Pick any adverse weather phenomenon somewhere on earth and attribute it to catastrophic climate change. Rinse and repeat.

      • Its not a one-off drought and you know that 🙂 You justcset out to deny that there is no climate change happening around thecworld when this shows that there us. Keep on denying all the evidence…

    • Fascinating how things that have happened on a regular basis on a regular basis, for millions of years, become proof positive of catastrophic global warming.

      I guess it’s easier than thinking for yourself.

      • If Ivan can repeat entire posts, surely I can repeat phrases within a post?

        Actually, a cut and paste error, bad poster, no donut.

  21. Excellent summary of the case.
    What do we do about it?
    My thought is to go after the “Science” orgs like AAAS and the NAS first.
    All the rules of science are being violated by people who claim to be “scientists.”
    Surely there are long-standing members of these organizations that realize this.
    Challenge them (and hear the weasels squeal!) again and again. What else can we do?

  22. “All this headline-grabbing gloom and doom, however, is backed up by little more than computer models, obstinate assertions that the science is settled, and a steady litany of claims that temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts et cetera are unprecedented, worse than ever before, and due to fossil fuels.”

    — It’s not even as strong as that. There exists a huge gap between the intensity of the claims for impending doom and the moderated claims in the scientific studies themselves. When someone says, ““the human race faces extinction if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels” we need to ask them exactly what scientific studies make that claim, and which scientists agree with them.

  23. “We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”

    — Okay… so… the politics are admittedly not yet settled. The decisions are largely open because public is not on board with the idea that the scientific findings justify taking radical action. And you don’t want to discuss the justification for the radical action that you claim is needed to save the world. Got it.

    You don’t want to have a public debate? That’s okay. We’ve already had a public debate. It seems that you lost.

  24. The more people notice that the weather is no different than the range they got in the past, the more desperate the Warmistas become and the more they ramp up their rhetoric and absurd claims to grab headlines in the MSM. These sort of things never end well.

  25. Just completed a lecture today on climate and infectious diseases, pointing out that all of the scare stories were based on models whereas observations show a much more complex process and that generally people have done better in warm periods than in cold. Lyme disease is rising but in areas that have a 30 year history of cooling not warming, malaria is declining world-wide while alarmist keep saying the “planet is burning”. I tried to put it all in context of the geologic history of the planet, its atmosphere and the history of photosynthesis along with the gradual changes in atmospheric gases and temperature. As far as infections go the main determinants today are societal, not climactic.

    Sure enough an academic colleague helpfully tried to put me straght on a few points such as the recent paper claiming a rapid rise in ocean heat content and the issue of ocean acidification, but he could not quote any data or explain the methods of the ocean heat content paper in question or what would be reasonable error bars for measuring deep ocean temperatures (a requirement to calculate ocean heat content). He referred to the IPCC as an authority but hasn’t apparently read the reports. He feels the IPCC represents the majority of competent climate scientists, but I suspect he has no idea how many unqualified environmental campaigners and junior scientist with little experience are involved, or how scientific agreements to conclusions are subsequently altered by policy hacks to support government positions.

    I have to give him credit for allowing a discussion of sorts but I find time after time that those who have accepted the dogma, have very few facts at hand, haven’t read the science or IPCC reports and are acting more on belief than experience. And these people are scientifically trained!

    My last conclusion at the talk: Science is skepticism, it is the process of trying to prove your theory wrong, not trying to prove what you already believe.

  26. ‘… Governor Jerry Brown solemnly intoned that America has “an enemy, though different, but perhaps very much devastating in a similar way” as the Nazis in World War II …’.
    ======================================
    Not the Nazis again — but there is an analogy that may apply; as the Reich was collapsing on all fronts and the careerists and opportunists were quietly melting away, the rhetoric coming from Goebbels’ department and the true fanatics became more and more hysterical and deranged.
    It could be symptomatic.

  27. Repeat a lie often enough and it will eventually be accepted as truth.

    You can use all the science you want to rebut the lies but they will use brute force to achieve their adjectives if necessary. As to what those objectives are just read one of Patrick Woods books on Technocracy. They have made tremendous progress already towards total information control (media, education, collection of communications and financial data, entertainment etc). With this they may create any reality they wish

    Get ready for the green economy where eating steak will be a privalege only for the wealthy. You may eat cake (or cereal) in your cold or very hot room due to a shortage of carbon credits

  28. “Forest fires are fewer than in the recent past – and largely due to failure to remove hundreds of millions of dead and diseased trees that provide ready tinder for massive conflagrations.”

    This seems contradictory. Did the author mean to say “Forest fires are more frequent”?

    Personally I think we should leave forests alone. Let them burn as they do in nature. If you want a house in the woods, you take your chances.

  29. While I in Australia regard the USA Electoral College system as a blatant gerrymander designed by the founding fathers to combat the City folk who away from the land have forgotten what things are important, I say thank goodness they do have it, even though its not a democratic system.

    Its a very true saying that the country does not need cities, but the cities do need the country. So such a unfair system from a voting point of view is justified if we want to survive in the real world

    Both South Australia and Queensland had such a system, and both States prospered during that time. Today we are truly a democracy and in one big mess financially.

    MJE

  30. “As in any civil or criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the accusers”

    Except that the skeptical community has made it easy for them to invoke the old “shifting the burden of proof fallacy” by arguing with dueling theories. As in “it’s not the co2 it’s the xxx or yyy or zzz or something else. Once this argument is made it opens the way for climate science to say “prove it” and then to attack the proof as a way of legitimizing co2.

Comments are closed.