How climate change is fueling extremism
By Isabelle Gerretsen, CNN
Updated 6:26 AM ET, Wed March 6, 2019(CNN) Climate change is already triggering devastating weather events across the planet… [Blah, blah, blah]
[…]
Does anyone else always hear Darth Vader’s voice in their head whenever they read the letters CNN?
Predictably the scientifically illiterate 20-something year old CNN “journalist” wasn’t even wrong.
Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly “correct” conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable.
The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don’t even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
—James Downey, Billy Madison[2]
The phrase apparently originates with physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who used the phrase (in the form “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!” — “That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!”) to describe an unclear research paper. Pauli was known for his detestation of sloppy writing and arguments, and for his somewhat “colourful” objections to such things. The term has since gathered some popularity, amongst those involved in refuting pseudoscience, to reference the difficulties faced in dealing with some of the more out-of-this-world arguments. Examples include so-called creationist escape hatches, which are a series of irrefutable (but equally unprovable) claims that defy correction with conventional logic.[3] It also applies to science stoppers.
Climate change isn’t triggering devastating weather events. There isn’t even a way to adequately test the concept. Such claims are “not even wrong.”
FEBRUARY 10, 2011
The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder
The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.
By ANNE JOLIS
Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.
But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.
As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”
In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.
[…]
From the abstract of Compo et al., 2012…
Some surprising results are already evident. For instance, the long-term trends of indices representing the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation, and the Pacific–North American pattern are weak or non-existent over the full period of record. The long-term trends of zonally averaged precipitation minus evaporation also differ in character from those in climate model simulations of the twentieth century.
From Sardeshmukh et al., 2015…
Given the reality of anthropogenic global warming, it is tempting to seek an anthropogenic component in any recent change in the statistics of extreme weather. This paper cautions that such efforts may, however, lead to wrong conclusions if the distinctively skewed and heavy-tailed aspects of the probability distributions of daily weather anomalies are ignored or misrepresented. Departures of several standard deviations from the mean, although rare, are far more common in such a distinctively non-Gaussian world than they are in a Gaussian world. This further complicates the problem of detecting changes in tail probabilities from historical records of limited length and accuracy.[…]
Current statements concerning changing extreme weather risks associated with global warming mainly involve quantities related to surface temperature (IPCC 2014) and essentially amount to simple shifts of existing PDFs. Such statements downplay the fact that there is more to regional climate change than surface warming, and that assessing the changing risks of extreme storminess, droughts, floods, and heat waves requires accurate model representations of multidecadal and longer-term changes in the large-scale modes of natural atmospheric circulation variability and the complex nonlinear climate–weather interactions associated with them. The detection of changes in such modes from the limited observational record is much less clear cut than for surface temperature. Figure 12 demonstrated this for indices of large-scale modes of wintertime atmospheric circulation variability in the North Atlantic sector (the NAO index) and the North Pacific sector (the NP index). We found no significant changes either in the mean or in the entire PDFs of these indices over the last 140 years. This is of course not to imply that there have been no changes in other modes of circulation variability in other parts of the globe, just that any such changes need to be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis after due consideration of the non-Gaussian aspects of the probability distributions.
To detect, attribute, and make credible projections of changing extreme weather risks in a changing climate using climate models, the models need to represent not only the shifting means but also changes in the width and shape of the distributions of daily weather anomalies. Model misrepresentations of these changes can cast doubt on such efforts. Indeed current models have difficulty in representing even the mean changes, such as their inability to adequately capture the post-1998 “hiatus” in global warming (Fyfe et al. 2013). The mean errors are relatively large on regional scales, in substantial part because of model difficulties in capturing the pattern of tropical ocean temperature changes and their global impacts (Shin and Sardeshmukh 2011) that are associated with misrepresentations of tropical feedback processes (Shin et al. 2010). To estimate changes in tail probabilities using such imperfect models, it is important to account for biases in the probability distributions. However, it is clearly inappropriate to do so through a simple a posteriori “bias correction,” given the links between the mean, variance, and shapes of the predicted probability distributions. There is limited understanding of such links at present, mainly due to the limited understanding of climate–weather interactions on regional scales.[…]
How scientific and economic illiteracy are fueling weather extremism
While there’s no evidence of climate change triggering anything, much less “fueling extremism”… Scientific and economic ignorance clearly are triggering a lot of extremism regarding the weather, like Ms. Gerretsen’s rambling, incoherent nonsense and a steady stream of the most insanely idiotic things from Marxist politicians…
“You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake,” said Comrade Bernie Sanders… It doesn’t get any more retarded than this: “The future of the planet is at stake.” The “planet” handled far warmer climates with ease over most of the Phanerozoic Eon (most recent 550 million years). The current climate is abnormally cold.
Our balmy Quaternary Period interglacial stage is only slightly warmer than the coldest temperatures of the last 550 million years… And Bernie thinks that a couple of degrees of warming puts the “future of the planet… at stake”? Really? The “planet” doesn’t even notice climate change. At most, climate change moves a bit of dirt around. 99.999999999% of the planet is totally unaffected by climate change.
How could someone be so fracking stupid and still manage to breathe? Autonomous functions should be disabled with such minimal brain power.
Since Bernie is an idiot, who has never held real job in his life, I can understand his total ignorance of science and economics… However, how in the Hell could he be ignorant of George Carlin?
Of course, Comrade Bernie isn’t even the stupidest weather-extremist in Congress…
Amazingly, the idiocy isn’t strictly limited to Marxist journalists and politicians…
The Green New Deal isn’t outlandish — it’s a necessity
BY JEFFREY SACHS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/04/19A recent Washington Post editorial and a letter by leading economists suggest that a carbon tax is the “best first-line policy.”
The editorial argues that “a high-enough carbon price would shape millions of choices, small and large, about what to buy, how to invest and how to live that would result in substantial emissions cuts.” It sounds plausible, yet it’s not the right way to approach the problem.
Let me start with a close analogy. In the 1980s, scientists realized that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were destroying the stratospheric ozone layer, at great peril to humanity. CFCs needed to be replaced by safer chemicals.
To do so, the world’s government’s adopted the Montreal Protocol, which set a timeline to replace CFCs mainly by other fluorine gases without the ozone-destroying properties. That treaty has worked. CFCs are no longer used. The ozone layer is gradually being restored.
[…]
Jeffrey Sachs is ostensibly a serious academic… In other words, dumber than Marxist journalists and politicians. There is no analogy between CFC’s and climate change… I take that back. There is an analogy. The “peril to humanity” was greatly exaggerated in both cases.
However, CFC’s do have an adverse effect on stratospheric ozone. While anthropogenic carbon compound emissions will, all other factors held equal, raise the bulk temperature of the atmosphere by about 1 °C per doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, it’s quite possible that a slight warming of the lower atmosphere will yield more beneficial than adverse effects.
The lack of analogy becomes even more obvious regarding the Montreal Protocol and the Green New Deal. While the Montreal Protocol was expensive, particularly if you needed air conditioning repairs in the early 1990’s, it had no potential to devastate the global economy and it may have contributed to an almost measurable recovery in the seasonal Antarctic ozone hole (this is called “damning with faint praise”). The Green New Deal would totally destroy the US economy, plunge the entire world back into the economic and technological abyss of the Pleistocene and have absolutely no measurable effect on the weather.
Replacing CFC’s was trivial compared to replacing high-carbon energy sources…
Particularly since they insist on doing this without relying on the only energy sources that could actually significantly reduce carbon emissions at a reasonable cost.
Before anyone babbles something about wind and solar getting cheaper… The cost could drop to Dean Wormer levels and it wouldn’t make any difference (look at the right side of the graph).
In case you are unfamiliar with Dean Wormer:
References
Compo GP, Whitaker JS, Sardeshmukh PD, Matsui N, Allan RJ, Yin X, Gleason Jr BE, Vose RS, Rutledge G, Bessemoulin P, Bronnimann S, Brunet M, Crouthamel RI, Grant AN, Groisman PY, Jones, PD, Kruk MC, Kruger AC, Marshall GJ, Maugeri M, Mok HY, Nordli Ø, Ross TF, Trigo RM, Wang XL,
Woodruff SD, Worley SJ. 2011. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137: 1–28. DOI:10.1002/qj.776
Sardeshmukh, P.D., G.P. Compo, and C. Penland, 2015: Need for Caution in Interpreting Extreme Weather Statistics. J. Climate, 28, 9166–9187, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0020.1
The only “extremism” I have noticed is that which comes out of the hair on fire climate change fear mongers
These are the same people who just spent years pushing a rigged election hoax.
Right after some of them actually rigged an election.
Leftists always assume that everyone else is doing what ever it is that they want to do.
Apologies for correcting you – Leftists accuse everyone else of doing what they are doing themselves.
Whether that is merely making up bovine scat online articles right the way up to attempting to run the world.
My favourite sentence in the article concerns the idiot Bernie Sanders, “How could someone be so fracking stupid and still manage to breath? Autonomous functions should be disabled with such minimal brain power.” This description applies to very many people and I will be thinking of it often.
May the good Lord protect us from these idiots, if possible.
One of my cleverest insults… 😉
AOC’s IQ tests coming back Negative is a HOOT as well
I can’t take credit for that one.
David, please email the Victorian and South Australia Premiers and the Federal Govt and PM a copy of the graph at the end so they can discuss it in cabinet, and get some professional treatment for their hopelessly delusional abuse of the taxpayers of Australia and the demented crap they keep pushing on the public every day.
tah
I have to agree that it is one of your best, but I think its greatness would increase by an order of magnitude if “breathe” was spelled correctly.
It’s spelled correctly… It’s just the wrong word.
“manage to breath”
Error propagation. Try “breathe” instead of “breath”. One is a verb, the other a noun in this context.
Fixed… D’oh!
Yes, these people are frustratingly annoying and uninformed and abundantly ignorant about many, many things. But better that we know who they are, what they say, and how (little) they think, than to have them out of sight where no one keeps track of their activities and “ideas” and all that accompany that.
Someone like AOC, who makes grandiose statements about destruction of current buildings/dwellings and replacement with her notions of what housing and buildings should be like, obviously knows nothing about building codes, or how long they’ve been around. I’m quite sure that if you asked her, and any of her contemporaries, about the R factor for the buildings they live in, you’d get a very blank look. This is only one of many subjects in which she displays abundant ignorance.
Let them speak. Let them speak loudly and keep us informed about their utter ignorance and bad ideas. If we don’t know about them first hand, they will sneak in and doom all of us to destruction.
Most of them probably believe that they are the first ones to think of such a thing as a building code, and that there are none currently.
And don’t forget:
Nearly 1 In 5 Millennials Consider Joseph Stalin And Kim Jong Un ‘Heroes’
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/02/nearly-1-in-5-millennials-consider-joseph-stalin-and-kim-jong-un-heroes/
But Kim Young-un IS a hero…just ask him
Do you think they’d believe much longer that if Joe rose from his grave and put them in front of a firing squad?
I know they really are that stupid, but they haven’t gone hungry or cold or desperate for shelter. If only there were some way….
There is an over abundance of three kinds of illiterates who have been elected to Congress: Science illiterates, money illiterates and economics illiterates. Each group of illiterates has made contributions to our 22 trillion Treasury debt.
…..And there’s near zero hope that things will improve…..
The Climate debate is heating up here in Australia because an election is looming. The loopy extremists are coming out of the woodwork. Accusations are flying…”coal is a ”dying industry.” Meanwhile new coal fired power plants deals are made. Threats of ”the biggest protests evah.” The Politicians are running for cover. It will be a blood bath. I’m getting the popcorn ready. There will be much shouting and throwing things at the TV.
The climate zombies are on the march!
The media will beat it all up and nothing will happen regardless of who wins the election.
Ms Gerretsen wrote in her propaganda piece:
“The impact of climate change on the Sahel is clearly shown by the shrinking of Lake Chad.”
Regarding Lake Chad and the mindless claim she makes about its shrinkage being caused by Climate Change, Isabelle Gerretsen is so stupid or blinded with climate religion she can’t even go read Wikipedia to at least start down the path of knowledge.
Wikipedia entries:
– “In Winston Churchill’s book The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan, published in 1899, he specifically mentions the shrinking of Lake Chad.” Yep 1899, the magic molecule was apparently shrinking Lake Chad according to Ms Gerretsen.
– “Because Lake Chad is very shallow—only 10.5 metres (34 ft) at its deepest—its area is particularly sensitive to small changes in average depth, and consequently it also shows seasonal fluctuations in size. Lake Chad’s volume of 72 km3 (17 cu mi)[3] is very small relative to that of Lake Tanganyika (18,900 km3 (4,500 cu mi)), and Lake Victoria (2,750 km3 (660 cu mi)), African lakes with similar surface areas. ” Undoubtedly Ms Gerretsen doesn’t know how volume is calculated.
– “An increased demand on the lake’s water from the local population has likely accelerated its shrinkage over the past 40 years.” Ms Gerretsen is so dumb she can’t understand how more people = more water useage, so it must be the fault of the Magic Molecule in her closed-mind.
– “By 2000, its extent had fallen to less than 1,500 km2 (580 sq mi). A 2001 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research blamed the lake’s retreat largely on overgrazing in the area surrounding the lake, causing desertification and a decline in vegetation.” Maybe Ms Gerretsen would prefer the people of Chad and Nigeria to get their protein from harvesting giraffes, gazelles elephants, and water buffalos?
– “There is some debate over the mechanisms causing the lake’s disappearance. The leading theory, which is most often cited by the UN, is that the unsustainable usage of the lake by both governments and local communities has caused the lake to be over-used, not allowing it to replenish.” But hey, let’s keep blaming CO2… because ..Propaganda is CNN.
Everything in italics above is from Wikipedia, which Ms Gerretsen could easily have checked. But when you job is to write climate propaganda… well, facts don’t matter when you have an agenda to push.
CNN… The Climatariat News Network… 😎
Wrong again David.
CNN = Certifiably Not Normal
CNN=Communist News Network
CNN = Counterfeit News Network
Regardless of the meaning of the initials, the old tag line was simply missing punctuation:
“CNN, the most trusted name in new?”
And the answer to the question is a resounding NO!
I remember when it was called the Clinton News Network.
I can just imagine the journalist’s hysteria when I mention the Transaqua Project to re-fill the lake with canals from the Congo. Imagine actually doing something on a grand scale, actually building essential infrastructure. In 2016 PowerChina and Bonifica both signed agreements to do more work on the feasibility. In February 2018 at the Lake Chad Basin Commission meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, the assembled countries said this is the way we’re going to go. Water transfer is the only way to save this lake.
The entire CO2/Climate theater is just smoke and mirrors – reality is quite different.
A picture worth a lot of water ….
The harm that CFC’s were alleged to cause to the ozone layer was predicted by models. No evidence of such harm has ever been detected in the real world.
Certainly, no “unique” evidence has ever been detected.
Nor has there ever been any evidence that the “ozone hole” hasn’t always existed, even before humans.
CFC’s may have deepened the naturally occurring seasonal Antarctic ozone “hole”; however the evidence for this is ambiguous.
Marcel Leroux showed some evidence that the continuous eruption of Mt. Erebus should at least be considered as a candidate source of the halogens.
It always bothered me that these massive molecules (approximately twice the mass of the “average” atmospheric mass of about 29 amu), and, coming mostly from the Northern Hemisphere, somehow ALL made their way, not just up into the stratosphere, but from about 40 degrees N latitude, to 80 degrees S latitude. Surely, that has to be one of the most amazing atmospheric circulation feats on record!!
Just as these intelligent CO2 molecules ALWAYS re-direct their “backradiation” downwards towards the surface of the Earth, these CFC molecules, equally intelligent, single-mindedly mass-migrated unidirectionally SOUTH, to congregate at the South Polar region, all the while climbing above 20 km in altitude.
It boggles the mind the level of intelligence carbon dioxide and the CFC’s all show. Hey!!! Maybe we can get them to share some of their intelligence with She Gueverra (a.k.a. Occasional Cortex) and Bernie “Free!” Sanders. It sounds to me like these gasses have plenty to share, and just think how dangerous Bernie and Occasional would be, with a measurable level of intelligence!!
Regards to all,
Vlad
The Antarctic polar vortex is the primary cause of the seasonal ozone thinning.
Seaweed dumps gazillions of tons of chlorinated hydrocarbons into the air every year. Also brominated hydrocarbons. Including southern hemisphere seaweed. It’s all the fault of vanadium haloperoxidases, and its various cousins.
See here for an accounting. Human production of halocarbons pales compared to natural fluxes.
Also, volatile fluoride (HF) from volcanoes.
CNN was set set up by a UN toad to be a propaganda rag for the UN and world government.
The stupidity, functional ignorance and left-wing political bias of nearly everyone ever associated with CNN, from Ted Turner to Jim Acosta, is adequate… There’s no need to invoke conspiracy theories.
But is it a Conspiracy Theory if they really are out to separate you from your reliable energy
Plain stupidity is an adequate explanation. This doesn’t rule out the possibility of a grand conspiracy, it’s just not a better explanation.
And once again you display your extreme naivety. The literature is copious on the plane of agenda 21. It’s been written about for decades, the words of the major players are documented, and the claims they made are coming to fruition.
You may not agree with people like Alex Jones and other fringe internet personalities, but they don’t get these type of conspiracies correct.
The issue is your mind is so shackled by the matrix, you refuse to believe anything other than what you find reasonable actually exists.
Operation Northwoods. That’s a verifiable, actual conspiracy theory that turned out to be factual. Period. So wake up buddy because having a high IQ and mathematical skills obviously isn’t sufficient enough to grasp the full picture.
Conspiracies exist. Your refusal to investigate them and accept reality is a function of willful ignorance and I’m sick of seeing childish dismissals of reality.
Humans exhale co2. Governments are now taxing co2 because they want full spectrum domination that no human can about, simply by existing.
Pull your inflated head out of your status quo posterior
They do* get these type of conspiracies correct. Typo.
Definitively not conspiracies:
9/11
Vaccines
GMO
5g
AI
Robotics
GMO crops are the only way to feed 7 billion people and will become more essential as the human population grows to 10 billion.
While AI, 5g and robotics are susceptible to misuse, so are all technological advances.
The anti-vaccine movement is tin-foil hat crazy.
Myth:
Mind control
Bad ideas:
Geoengineering
Dumbing down of education
Destruction of family and religion
Annoying:
Incessant demands to embrace LBGQXYZEIEIOU lifestyles as normal.
Operation Northwoods just demonstrates that the Pentagon is capable of thinking up really crazy ideas. The fact that it was rejected shows that not all Kennedy’s are idiots.
This was barely a year after JFK allowed the CIA’s Bay of Pigs operation to go forward with disastrous results. Communist Cuba was viewed as a dire threats to US national security. This was born out in October 1962, when the Cuban Missile Crisis put the US and USSR on the brink of nuclear war. The Pentagon and CIA came up with lots of unconventional ideas for dealing with Cuba, most of which were never approved for implementation. It’s their job to come up with out-of-the-box plans for dealing with national security threats ranging from likely to near-science fiction scenarios
No one is proposing a carbon tax on breathing because 1) it’s impossible and 2) human respiration doesn’t have any effect on atmospheric CO2.
Human respiration just recycles carbon that’s already in the active carbon cycle. Fossil fuel combustion does actually move carbon out of geologic sequestration and into the active carbon cycle.
While the “threat” is grotesquely exaggerated, fossil fuel emissions are the cause of at least half of the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years.
While I do agree with you that socialist politicians and bureaucrats want to expand government control of economic activities, this doesn’t require a grand conspiracy. It’s just the nature of socialism and bureaucracy.
Operation Northwoods. That’s a verifiable, actual conspiracy theory that turned out to be factual.
No, it was a crazy idea that was (rightly) never implemented. Crazy ideas that never get off the launch pad aren’t much of a conspiracy. Anyone can put forth a crazy idea – it only takes one person to come up with an idea. It takes more than one person working in conjunction to have a conspiracy. It’s not much of a conspiracy when the group of people reject the crazy ideas as being crazy ideas.
literature is copious on the plane of agenda 21….and the claims they made are coming to fruition
Conspiracies are all about *secret* plans (it’s part of the definition of the word). It’s not much of a secret plan when the conspirators publically tell you what their plan is. When you are talking about is a political platform, no different than the political platforms major political parties offer up (or are those conspiracies as well in your tinfoil world?). Just because you don’t agree with the platform (and neither do I) doesn’t make it a conspiracy.
Well, it was on the part of the terrorists…
True that.
The UN’s agenda 21 is all about UN world government. Conspiracy of an evil ideology yes, theory no.
Agenda 21 certainly “smells” like a conspiracy. Although bureaucratic imbeciles, who are convinced they are geniuses, with misplaced senses of self-rightiousness could certainly have come up with Agenda 21, in the absence of a grand conspiracy to control the world.
Socialist politicians tend to be morons, who have convinced themselves that they are brilliant. They truly do believe that government can deliver social, economic and environmental justice to the people. The needs for Agenda 21, the Green New Deal and other unicorn-schemes are crucial to saving the planet in their greemtarded pea-sized brains.
Rob, for all of Middleton’s intelligence… He doesn’t have any capacity to align with reality in these regards. They have extreme cognitive dissonance, but dismiss evil machinations and malthusian as “plain stupidity” is typical of arrogant academics and regular average dopes.. they see the evil of regular humans but refuse to logically extend that to extremely wealthy, determined, Arguing against a global conspiracy to depopulate and control the remaining humanity is plainly stupid. The evidence is copious on the topic from this scam, 911, vaccines, GMO, 5G, Geo-engineering, artificial intelligence, robotics, mind control techniques, education overthrow, destruction of the family and religion including androgenous and homosexual agenda, abortion, (people like Dave refuse to connect dots. They are arrogant know it alls who look down their nose at anyone who disagrees with them on the scope and the intent, by dismissing it as incompetence. ) There is nothing you can say to these types, because the hubris is so potent. High intelligence, high conscientiousness, nearly zero consciousness. They can’t be reached.
Operation Northwoods. If you can’t recognize the implications of that and realize how these people operate then you deserve the suffering that they want to inflict.
I’m just pointing out that there’s no need to invoke conspiracies, when plain old stupidity is a sufficient explanation. This doesn’t rule out a grand conspiracy; it just makes stupidity a more likely explanation.
It’s an Occam’s Razor sort of thing.
Definitively not conspiracies:
9/11
Vaccines
GMO
5g
AI
Robotics
GMO crops are the only way to feed 7 billion people and will become more essential as the human population grows to 10 billion.
While AI, 5g and robotics are susceptible to misuse, so are all technological advances.
The anti-vaccine movement is tin-foil hat crazy.
Myth:
Mind control
Bad ideas:
Geoengineering
Dumbing down of education
Destruction of family and religion
Annoying:
Incessant demands to embrace LBGQXYZEIEIOU lifestyles as normal.
Operation Northwoods just demonstrates that the Pentagon is capable of thinking up really crazy ideas. The fact that it was rejected shows that not all Kennedy’s are idiots.
You realize, Mathew, one can easily reverse your whole argument and say it about types like you who are “arrogant know it alls who look down their nose at anyone who disagrees with them on the scope and the intent, by dismissing it as conspiracy”. You are so all fired sure you know it’s a conspiracy, when simple incompetence/stupidity & good old fashion group think does explain all the same things equally well.
The evidence is copious on the topic from this scam, 911, vaccines, GMO, 5G, Geo-engineering, artificial intelligence, robotics, mind control techniques, education overthrow, destruction of the family and religion including androgenous and homosexual agenda, abortion,
You forgot faking the moon landings and JFKs assassination. Come on, if you are going to connect the dots, don’t leave any out.
You conspiracy folks remind me of a former co-worker of mine who was always going on about the bilderberger’s “secret” meetings (that required shutting down entire city blocks. He never did explain how they could keep the meetings a secret with such a public display or if the fact that if the meetings were so secret how he knew all about them), black helicopters and that if “they” knew what he knows, they’d kill him (though how he thought it was safe to tell everyone who would listen to his ramblings all about this stuff without “them” finding out about it was yet another logical inconsistency that he never addressed).
That’s not to say conspiracies *don’t* or *can’t* exist. Just that they require more than seeing the “patterns” you want to see (IE “connecting the dots” as you put it) to prove.
Operation Northwoods just demonstrates that the Pentagon is capable of thinking up really crazy ideas. The fact that it was rejected shows that not all Kennedy’s are idiots.
Indeed, it’s not a very competent conspiracy when it fails to implement it’s conspiracy plans.
That was a planned conspiracy that got shut down before it was implemented. Neither of us will recognize the others arguments, and with respect to conspiracy, it’s largely due to your inability to accept the depravity of certain individuals. That’s fine.
That GMO study regarding mice was perfectly fine and the vaccine autism link was admitted by Dr. Zimmerman in an affidavit, but the DOJ refused to admit that section into court.
William Thompson changed his tune once he caught fire from status quo folks like yourselves.
That vaccine theory works and herd immunity is real is completely unproven horse hockey. As is usual you right brain dominant types can’t see the first for the trees because it negates your worldview.
That GMO is proven safe is false and that long term vaccine studies of non vaccinated vs vaccinated children never happened should raise some red flags.
That’s fine. Play God. Inject yourself with poison, telling yourselves that is health. Fine. Just don’t force mandated vaccination on those who don’t agree.
Boosters? Hello. There is no long term immunity from vaccination, but there is from contracting the disease. Mortality rates were already dropping precipitously before vaccines were submitted to the population.
Salk himself admitted most cases of polio were actually, most likely, a result of his vaccine.
1986 national vaccine injury act removed for all intents and purposes, civil lawsuits for vaccine damage. Pharmaceutical companies hold zero liability for their products. Zero.
ACIP is run by people such as Paul Offit with massive conflicts of interest, and Gerberding, but again, that’s just what to you? Greed? Funny how she ended up in charge of vaccine oversight at Merck after she ran the CDC.
911? NIST admitting free fall off building 7 and refusing to submit the code because… Natural security? You are so smart you fool yourselves.
Sure, the government’s story you buy…19 hijackers, of whom the pilots couldn’t pass a Cessna training, from the caves overtook national security, made two planes take down three buildings (two of which on record discussed by the engineer to withstand both fire and major commercial aircraft impact, one by fire that wasn’t hit directly by a plane, and then the Patriot act is installed months later, written by a warmonger and delivered to Congress, significantly reducing personal liberties of the American people.
Yep. Your conspiracy is extremely believable🙄
People like you have a vested interest in a false paradigm of corporate vs government and you are no different than leftists who buy into the likes of AOC.
I suppose this is no conspiracy?
https://youtu.be/1h5iv6sECGU
When your research involves uncredible legacy media sources, your worldview is based on manipulation.
When you refuse to acknowledge real journalism existing collusion, corruption, and conspiracy, that’s a you problem.
Just because not all conspiracies (flat Earth, probably chem trails, elders of Zion, etc) turn out to be authentic doesn’t mean there aren’t ones that are legitimate. One world government, with zero sovereignty for the individual, funded by carbon dioxide taxes is a legitimate plan. You refusing to investigate and recognize it doesn’t make it any less real
That was a planned conspiracy that got shut down before it was implemented
No, sorry, it wasn’t. It was a bad idea that was recognized as such. You have to come up with a lot better than that to turn a bad idea into an actual conspiracy (as opposed to your imagined one).
As is usual you tin foil hat types can’t see the forest for the trees (or, apparently, even spell forest 😉 ) because it negates your worldview.
Dr. Zimmerman in an affidavit, but the DOJ refused to admit that section into court
Sorry but the facts say you are wrong. Zimmerman gave a written statement to the court and that was included, along side the oral testimony of 9 other expert witnesses (as well as 6 other written expert testimony). And has since been an expert witness in several other cases. The idea that he was censored just doesn’t stand up to the facts. That tin-foil hat anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists such as your self hold up a man who has stated “As a pediatric neurologist and member of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Neurology Society, the American Academy of Neurology and the American Neurological Association, I strongly support the importance of vaccines for all children” as proof that vaccines are dangerous to children would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. Zimmerman is not an anti-vaxxer, since you revere him so much, perhaps you should take everything he has to say more seriously rather than cherry picking the one little thing that you think supports your tin-foiled world view.
Always remember that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you.
How can it be a conspiracy when they openly tell everyone what they want to do?
I think Dean Wormer has CNN on double secret probation.
Electricity in Venezuela is so green it’s dark: https://apnews.com/f2e9b0c5347f41e7a525be1c7a15420f
And electricity in the DPRK is so Green, it’s practically nonexistent
A bit off-topic, but horrid climate change making beautiful blooms in California deserts:
https://apnews.com/ed29b4eb7476473b82bc6e7420e8a90f
Let’s organize protests over this.
AOC’s poster: risum abundat in ore stultorum
From the article: “The Green New Deal would totally destroy the US economy, plunge the entire world back into the economic and technological abyss of the Pleistocene and have absolutely no measurable effect on the weather.”
It’s even worse. The Green New Deal only applies to the United States. The rest of the world goes merrily along doing what they are doing now, like flying in airplanes and driving ice vehicles, and raising cattle and building lots and lots of fossil-fueled power plants.
Yes and no, Tom. While it’s true that the rest of the world gets to go along it’s merry way without the suicidal restrictions that the GND imposes on the US, the world’s economy is very tightly linked to the US economy (not surprisingly considering the size of the US economy to that of the rest of the world). When the US economy tanks, so too do economies around the world. The difference is, we’ll have handcuffed our selves to a disastrous economic model that will lock us into economic ruin whereas the rest of the world will be able to pick up the pieces and recover in time.
Delusion = An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
So maybe climate change caused CNN?
In a sense, it is true, in the same way that Donald Trump caused CNN, or at least prolonged it. Without something to rail against, CNN would be even further down the financial toilet because everyone knows how much the Trump phenomenon has helped their viewing figures.
Their biggest problem is not being scolded by the President for appallingly low standards of journalism, but what will happen to their financials when he leaves office. And when he does leave office he will probably have more time on his hands for the legal pursuit of those who have libeled and slandered him. He certainly doesn’t lack the motivation and resources to do so. CNN may provide us with a lot more entertainment yet.
David – That IS Darth Vader’s voice you hear; in both cases it’s James Earl Jones.
Paul, that’s why he said that. It’s called humor.
If you have to tell people it’s humor… it kind of loses its humorous value… 😎
Unfortunately there’s always a segment of the population that are humor-challenged. 🙂
quantities related to surface temperature (IPCC 2014) and essentially amount to simple shifts of existing PDFs.
___________________________________________________
Acronym index « RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org › index.php › acron…
27.11.2009 · ACC= Anthropogenic Climate Change; AGU= American …
PDF= Probability Density Function; PDO= Pacific Decadal …
PDF is one of the most versatile abbreviations…
https://www.abbreviations.com/PDF
And this list failed to include Planar Deformation Features…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_deformation_features
It’s certainly fueling progressive extremism – but they kind of started there – just listen to their rhetoric on ANY subject – so, is the AGW fraud the chicken or the egg?
True that… ✌
In 2016, I finally downloaded the “R” program. When learning how to use the progrm, I went to
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph
clicked on the “With Tropical Cyclone Indicator, copied the data, listing year and extremes index percentage.
Here’s what I got. t is the yer, v is NOAA’s assigned extreme weather index percentage.
……………………………………………….
t v
1 1910 22.42
2 1911 22.77
3 1912 32.15
4 1913 17.43
5 1914 15.67
6 1915 25.22
7 1916 32.98
8 1917 29.25
9 1918 10.65
10 1919 21.38
11 1920 16.88
12 1921 24.87
13 1922 15.27
14 1923 17.78
15 1924 2737.00
16 1925 11.35
17 1926 22.82
18 1927 16.85
19 1928 14.75
20 1929 24.20
21 1930 11.97
22 1931 21.87
23 1932 17.03
24 1933 30.35
25 1934 34.73
26 1935 14.22
27 1936 18.78
28 1937 11.42
29 1938 16.85
30 1939 17.83
31 1940 21.10
32 1941 30.98
33 1942 12.97
34 1943 10.08
35 1944 15.47
36 1945 15.12
37 1946 11.63
38 1947 16.95
39 1948 19.03
40 1949 17.72
41 1950 28.17
42 1951 20.62
43 1952 12.57
44 1953 23.42
45 1954 31.02
46 1955 21.55
47 1956 15.78
48 1957 17.52
49 1958 17.37
50 1959 15.93
51 1960 18.63
52 1961 15.18
53 1962 6.48
54 1963 15.02
55 1964 24.57
56 1965 18.93
57 1966 15.48
58 1967 10.68
59 1968 15.37
60 1969 15.33
61 1970 11.02
62 1971 12.42
63 1972 14.22
64 1973 16.02
65 1974 10.83
66 1975 16.50
67 1976 21.38
68 1977 8.02
69 1978 16.30
70 1979 26.03
71 1980 10.32
72 1981 17.43
73 1982 16.17
74 1983 24.60
75 1984 13.60
76 1985 26.80
77 1986 15.18
78 1987 17.22
79 1988 15.70
80 1989 20.75
81 1990 19.12
82 1991 18.83
83 1992 22.33
84 1993 20.08
85 1994 11.33
86 1995 19.65
87 1996 30.03
88 1997 13.57
89 1998 41.88
90 1999 27.22
91 2000 13.48
92 2001 18.38
93 2002 21.15
94 2003 23.90
95 2004 28.82
96 2005 32.47
97 2006 27.80
98 2007 26.65
99 2008 23.72
100 2009 12.63
101 2010 19.62
102 2011 25.48
103 2012 43.67
104 2013 16.03
105 2014 23.75
106 2015 35.73
107 2016 39.05
………………………………………………………………..
I ran a linear correlation of t versus v to see if “extreme weather index” was increasing with time.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
lm(t~v)
m|t|)
(Intercept) 54.63091 3.03771 17.984 <2e-16 ***
v -0.01394 0.01144 -1.218 0.226
…………………………………………………………….
That v of -0.01394 meant that the trend for extreme weather was DROPPING between 1910 and 2016- weather was becoming LESS extreme on the average.
The P value of 0.226 meant the trend was statistically insignificant, and could easily have been due to chance.
So at least for 1910 to 2016, US weather showed no trend in extreme weather.
“15 1924 2737.00” ? Is that a boo boo ?
should have been 27.37. I ran it again, now positive trend, but p value 0.115, still not significant
Even if the slope was positive, the r2 is basically
The number for 1936 seems strange given the recent article by Heller. He shows 1936 had, by far, the most heat records. How could an “extreme weather index” be so low?
Even 2005 (Katrina et al) is behind 2015 and 2016. These were relatively low tornado years, so where is all the extreme weather? Is this only for tropical storms independent on landfall?
Great George Carlin video. It is from about 1992. Not much has changed in 27 years. Well maybe some of the details because of all the science that has been settled. Plastics were always bad for the environment. But now we know it is plastic straws in particular. We used to just generally pollute the air but now we have identified the exact molecule and quantity. And we used to know that we were all going to die but now we know we are 11 years, 10 month and 1 week from the end. And we know how to fix it by voting for the correct politician. I guess that’s progress.
If the planet only had this knowledge 4.5 billion years ago, it would have already self-destructed… 😉
XX“How climate change is fueling extremism”XX
“How the media is fueling climate change extremism”
There much more applicable headline.
Earlier this week, CNN.com had an article about a man and his dog who ran off a road into deep snow near Bend, Oregon. Man and dog tried to climb back up to the road through very deep snow and were unable to do so. The snow continued for days, with the man surviving on packets of taco sauce. He started the car occasionally to keep himself and his best friend from freezing. At one point in the article, the author threw out this gem…”It is not known how the man or his dog got water…” I laughed for ten minutes before I composed myself…
Ahh, CNN…a bastion of scientific brilliance and credibility.
One of CNN’s anchors once asked Bill Nye if asteroids were related to climate change… 🙄
The 4th National Climate Assessment used a new statistical method to attribute “the Cumulative Forest Area Burned” into two categories 1) “Wildfires Without Climate Change” and 2) “Wildfires With Climate Change”.
It’s been a few years since I did any attribution studies so I can’t say if the new method(s) are valid or not.
I do agree with this statement though-
…”The labelling of the chart actually understates the heroic feat the authors achieved as their conclusion actually models wildfire with and without anthropogenic climate change. This means that first they had to model the counterfactual of what the climate could have been like without the 30ppm (0.003% of the atmosphere) CO2 added in the period. Then, they had to model the counterfactual of what the wildfire burn acreage would have been under the counter-factual climate vs. what actually occurred. All while teasing out the effects of climate change from other variables like forest management and fuel reduction policy (which –oddly enough — despite substantial changes in this period apparently goes entirely unmentioned in the underlying study and does not seem to be a variable in their model). And they do all this for every year back to the mid-1980’s.”….
Ref- http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2018/11/knowledge-and-certainty-laundering-via-computer-models-2.html
This is the problem in a nutshell…
He draws a great analogy to the CBO’s supposed analysis of the 2009 economic stimulus bill; which claimed that unemployment would have been worse during “The Great Recession” without the stimulus. This conclusion is not only not testable, it’s contradicted by the a priori models used to justify the stimulus bill. The actual unemployment rate, with the stimulus, tracked the a priori modeled unemployment rate.