The Climate News Cabal Just Can’t Quit

Opinion by Kip Hansen – 9 July 2021

The Climate News Cabal:  a loose association of pseudo-journalists who have enlisted like-minded souls to strive to promote Climate Alarm in every news and media outlet in the world, and it should be noted that there is more than one of these nefarious outfits, are still at it.  Worse than ever.  I call them pseudo-journalists because they have abandoned all the mores of journalism for the thrill of viewpoint and political advocacy masquerading as journalism.   One of these groups is Covering Climate Now which corrupts journalism out of, ironically, the Columbia Journalism Review.

I’m on their mailing list (Sun Tzu – “Keep Your Enemies Closer”).  They email all their thoroughly nonsensical plans for making the world believe we are all going to die in . . . . countdown . . . 10 – 9 – 8  – 7 –  …   years  if  we-the-people  “don’t do as we-the-elites say!”  It is always a threat and the things that all of us must do is always the same – there is a prescribed list from the UN/IPCC/SDGs/Green-New-Dealers and everyone left of Ike Eisenhower:   Give up all petroleum products, give up your gasoline and diesel automobiles, give up 24/7 electrical power (only those who have it must give it up, those who don’t yet have it must never be allowed to have it in the first place).  And a few other odd little things:  give up eating meat, give up having families with children, traveling anywhere you can’t walk or bicycle to. 

Here’s CCNow’s latest tirade delivered to my email in-tray:

Do climate deniers really believe their nonsense?
JULY 8, 2021

It’s a trope in political journalism to wonder whether high profile climate deniers are “in on the joke.” That is, do they realize privately that the science is unequivocal but cynically choose to claim the opposite in public? Or are they truly, hopelessly uninformed?

In a video obtained this week by CNN, US Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, said the following in June during a luncheon with GOP women: “I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is bullshit.” (Johnson mouthed the operative word, as if that makes a difference.) He further claimed, falsely, that “more and more” scientists are debunking climate change—and he unironically said that taking climate action will be “a self-inflicted wound.”

That’s pretty straightforward. And given the private setting, it’s reasonable to conclude that Johnson—a man with virtually unlimited access to expertise and resources—actually believes it. 

It’s not only politicians, of course. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board called an effort by French President Emmanuel Macron to amend his country’s constitution to account for climate change “the latest example in Western democracies of the disconnect between elites obsessed with climate change and the public.”

In fact, studies and surveys repeatedly show that the public is urgently concerned about climate change. A June report by the Yale Program for Climate Communication found that majorities in each of 31 countries surveyed, often by large margins, want governments to make climate change a priority; in the US, the majority is smaller but nevertheless clearly in favor of taking action. This, despite the fact that only one in five Americans realize that scientists agree that climate change is real, human caused, and very dangerous.

Climate denial and misinformation will likely get worse now that meaningful action is finally on the table. Today’s weather extremes are making the emergency increasingly obvious, yet misperceptions still pervade segments of both elite and mass opinion, particularly in the US. Some climate deniers doubtless don’t want to know any better. Some of the misperceptions, however, are rooted in years of inadequate media coverage. Journalists must now make the facts unambiguously clear to all audiences–including the fact that only rapid, far-reaching action will preserve a livable climate for all of us.

No author taking credit, of course (who would put their name to that if they could dodge it?)  As you can imagine, I might have written it this way:

“It’s a trope in skeptical  journalism to wonder whether high profile climate alarmists are “in on the joke.” That is, do they realize privately that the science is nonsensical but cynically choose to claim the opposite in public? Or are they truly, hopelessly uninformed?”

“I mean, do Al Gore or Emma Thompson or Jane Fonda or Brad Pitt actually believe that flying around the world in private jets to spread climate alarm in countries where the people don’t even have toilets or electric lights is the right thing to do?”

That just might be me, but really? 

You see how CCNow works, they try to shame a sitting US Senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, for admitting his true personal understanding in public (of all places, after all, he is a politician):

“In a video obtained this week by CNN, US Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, said the following in June during a luncheon with GOP women: “I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is bullshit.” (Johnson mouthed the operative word, as if that makes a difference.) He further claimed, falsely, that “more and more” scientists are debunking climate change—and he unironically said that taking climate action will be “a self-inflicted wound.”

Hmmm, Ron Johnson thinks climate change is BS – so what?  He thinks that “’more and more’ scientists are debunking climate change” – we can’t fact check Senator Johnson’s opinion – its an opinion.  But are “more and more” scientists debunking climate change?  Let see.  Try a brief Amazon search for recent books skeptical of climate change and climate change policy.  Gee, more and more scientists are writing books debunking climate alarmism.  As always, no one (almost . .  some nut-cases out there)  claims that the climate or climates don’t  change.

Will some types of radical climate action be “a self-inflicted wound.”?  You betcha!  Some nations have already suffered self-inflicted wounds through their misguided climate policies.  That’s supported by even more scientists, politicians and economists than are skeptical of climate change in general. 

So, Senator Johnson, gives his unvarnished opinion on climate change (“BS”) and points out two true things but CCNow pretends that they are two false things.

But, wait, there is more! The link on the word “bullshit” in the CCNow email links to a progressive political hit-job show on CNN, ”Kfile”, from which these quotes are taken:

“In a statement, Johnson told CNN, “My statements are consistent. I am not a climate change denier, but I also am not a climate change alarmist. Climate is not static. It has always changed and always will change.” The senator offered a similar statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week, and later posted a response with his opinion on climate change on his Senate website, in which he said humanity could “easily adapt” to climate change.”

“Also in 2010, Johnson falsely suggested that the country Greenland was “actually green at one point in time,” to dismiss the effects of climate change.”

My goodness, his sin is noticing that the climate has changed and changes, and admitting to not being a climate alarmist (which seems to be required in the eyes of CNN).  Johnson foolishly, apparently believes that mankind can adapt to climate change (as we have done for all of the modern warm period).  But to state that Greenland was actually green at one time — that must be labelled false.

Do you think that anyone at CCNow or our striving CNN climate alarmists have actually been to Greenland?  Can they really not know that much of it’s coastal area is green today and much more of it was green during the last two previous warm periods?

That looks pretty green to me, all except the mountain tops – which is true in Los Angeles, California in the winter too. 

To add insult to injury, CCNow goes beyond any supportable truth and claims:  “scientists agree that climate change is real, human caused, and very dangerous.”  That is NOT true.

This is my opinion which I believe to be far closer to the truth, closer to actuality:

“Most scientists agree that some notion of “climate change” is real – it ranges from ‘climate is always changing’ through ‘the Earth appears to be warming slightly’ to full-blown climate alarm.   Many scientists agree that human changes to the environment – our many massive cities, ubiquitous land use changes, deforestation, widespread agriculture and so-called greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere – may or probably have caused some of that change.  Only very few scientists public state, in published work, that climate change is currently “very dangerous” – many more are willing to state that it might become, some vague time in the future, dangerous enough to require adaptation.  – Kip Hansen”

CCNow, Climate Desk, and other efforts of this type are destroying the trust that the general public once had in journalists and journalism and especially in science journalism – these advocacy cabals stretch, distort, misrepresent and warp both the facts and current events intentionally to “move the public mind” – which used to be called brainwashing – to make what is not real appear real.  Despicable. 

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

I have strong opinions on this topic, but have restrained myself.  Most importantly, readers should realize that their friends, neighbors, colleagues and relatives – all around the world – are being fed this type of intentional misleading climate news every day in every news story that climate alarm can be shoehorned into, whether it fits or not.  It is no wonder that they are scared. 
I haven’t bothered to debunk much of the obviously false and misleading stuff in the CCNow email … those wishing to contribute can do so in comments. 

# # # # #

4.9 36 votes
Article Rating
238 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 8, 2021 10:11 pm

“That looks pretty green to me, all except the mountain tops “
They do. But they are Alaska, not Greenland. The photo on the left is the Tongrass National Forest.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 12:24 am

No it isn’t Nick ! The picture of Tongrass National Forest is just very similar.
But if you look closely: the shore opposite to the mountain in this article is a grass plain.
In the picture of Tongrass (see link below), this shore is a dense forest with a sharp drop.
The shape of the lake is also slightly different.
comment image

Reply to  Eric Vieira
July 9, 2021 12:36 am
icisil
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 4:36 am

That article is funny.

Climate change is quickly converting once-frozen tracts into potentially hospitable places for trees and shrubs. … These findings sprouted up through a computer model the researchers built of Greenland’s predicted climate for the next 100 years”.

Looks like some needful information got “frozen out” of the model because 8 years later Greenland is getting whiter. It’s surface mass balance is currently positive, which has never happened before in recorded history at this time of year.

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20210708.png
PaulH
Reply to  icisil
July 9, 2021 5:57 am

Do computer-simulated sprouts dream of electric sunlight? 😉

Bill Powers
Reply to  PaulH
July 9, 2021 10:18 am

Their nightmares are filled with ever increasing RAM CO2. Electric Carbon Dioxide causes them to fall into electronic recycle bins and die.

Oddgeir
Reply to  icisil
July 12, 2021 5:36 pm

“Greenland is getting whiter. It’s surface mass balance is currently positive, which has never happened before in recorded history at this time of year. ”

That is not the case. On the lower side of your picture, you can spot 10 months of gain and 2 months of loss. Even as PP has been changing the reference timeframe to manipulate the result to look less good, the gain is higher than the loss.

Send them a FOIA to have them send you previous versions of the SMB.

Oddgeir

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 11:38 am

Climate Change Will Green Greenland — OMG!!! Frozen tracts in Greenland might potentially become green (according to models built by experts)!!!

Now that’s alarming. What a catastrophe. No wonder the super smart really sensitive leaders are closing pipelines, opening pipelines, banning oil drilling, encouraging more oil drilling, trading stocks, hedging stocks, buying land, selling land, abandoning the seashore, moving to the seashore, and generally running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Think of it: a few patches of frozen waste suddenly (well, geologically speaking) able to grow foot-tall shrubbery. Oh, the humanity! Weeping, wailing, tooth gnashing, gather the children and huddle in the dark because GREEN DOOM is coming. Run for your lives!!!! Panic Now!!!

Reply to  Eric Vieira
July 9, 2021 12:49 am

Nick is right – that is Tongrass. Hey, he was about due for his once in a year!

However, in Kip’s defense, you have dig down to its original use in an NBC “News” post. Just doing a search on “green greenland photos,” that one is in the top row of the image results (in Bing, anyway).

The NBC News post only identifies it as Tongrass in very small print.

Now to go turn the ad block on again over there, before I get more deceptive garbage from them.

Reply to  Writing Observer
July 9, 2021 12:57 am

Ah. Here’s one that is Greenland – Tasiusaq, southern Greenland. (Unless Greenland Tourism is lying, and managed to fool the Danish professor and Encyclopedia Britannica editors.)

Tasiusaq-Greenland.jpg
John Tillman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 5:21 am

Tongass. No R.

But much of southern coastal Greenland is green, and more of it was when so named.

Last edited 22 days ago by John Tillman
cerescokid
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 5:37 am

Nick

Why don’t you address the bigger issue. They said Johnson falsely suggested GREENLAND was once green. In order to show their “falsely suggested “ was itself false the only thing needed is to show that Greenland once had in one square meter a single green plant. Instead, among a large body of research is this

”The Greenland Herbarium of the University of Copenhagen is the world’s largest collection of flowering plants, gymnosperms, and vascular cryptogams from Greenland. The total number of specimens is approximately 140 000 including 185 types, and with the Greenland collections in British Museum, University of Oslo, and Lancaster University, the number exceeds 150 000 specimens of vascular plants from Greenland. Much smaller collections of vascular plants are held in the Herbarium of the Naturkunde Museum Münster, Germany, and the Utrecht Herbarium now in the Naturalis Biodiversity Center Leiden, the Netherlands. The total number of species of vascular plant is approximately 520 (Böcher et al. 1978; Daniëls and van Herk 1984; Bay 1993; Solstad and Elven, in preparation; Struck 2013; Daniels 2015).
Collecting vascular plants in Greenland was initiated in 1735 when P. Egede made a book herbarium of plants collected in the vicinity of the capital Nuuk. In the early period in the 20th century, the expeditions went to the more accessible areas by the towns along the southwest coast of Greenland. The exploration of the flora of East Greenland started to intensify during the 1930s, and especially from the 1980s, the exploration of northern East Greenland and North Greenland was logistically possible. Systematic exploration of the flora was carried out in 1962–1996 when the Greenland Botanical Survey operated in most parts of Greenland (Fig. 1).”

https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/as-2016-0039

Nick, why do you try to defend the indefensible? Especially these numbskulls.

MarkW
Reply to  cerescokid
July 9, 2021 9:36 am

When Nick finds himself behind in an argument, his first defense is to change the subject.

MarkW
Reply to  cerescokid
July 9, 2021 9:38 am

The total number of specimens is approximately 140 000 

That’s why Greenland is no longer green. The Danes have picked all the plants.

BrianB
Reply to  cerescokid
July 9, 2021 12:21 pm

Nick doesn’t fare so well when he approaches the larger issues.
His specialty is relatively pedantic points, some of which matter, or, as in this case, some that don’t.
But like climate models and IPCC projections, the further from some tiny nitpicking technicality he ventures to the bigger picture the further the conversation diverges from reality and its connections to actual evidence.
His pedantry and individual criticisms depend on often well grounded statistics. His bigger picture viewpoint depends on throwing that out the window.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 5:44 am

Nitpick Nick strikes again!

Notice that NN didn’t try to dispute the presence of non-ice covered areas in Greenland.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 10:08 am

Kip,
The reason I noticed it is that I knew there were no native conifer forests in Greenland. But it’s true from your link that the image on the right is near Thule. Of it they say
“Narsarsuaq Arboretum is exemplary of a forestation program that the whole world needs.”

Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 10:45 am

“The key element is the “re…” of reforestation.”
But there is no “re…” there.

“On the lower slopes of the Mellemlandet ridge, close to Narsarsuaq Airport, there is a unique ‘botanical garden of the Arctic’, called the Greenlandic Arboretum.[12][13] The goal is to establish a live collection of trees and bushes native to both the arctic and the alpine tree-lines of the entire Northern Hemisphere.
Founded in 1988, it encompasses 15 hectares and it shelters 110 plant species, mostly varieties of boreal taiga trees, such as Siberian larch, lodgepole pine, white spruce, Sitka spruce,[14][15] and various bushes. Many individual trees are tagged or otherwise marked. The plantation currently has more than 50,000 trees of various provenances.”

Those conifers named are introduced.

Last edited 22 days ago by Nick Stokes
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 11:05 am

Kip,
The conifers in this arboretum are not native to Greenland, and would not have formed forests in the past. From the above Smithsonian article:
“Currently, only five species of trees or large shrubs occur naturally in Greenland–Greenland mountain ash, mountain alder, downy birch, grayleaf willow, and common juniper–and and those hardy plants grow only in scattered plots in the far south. Field experiments and ambitious gardening projects, however, have confirmed that a range of other species–including Siberian larch, white spruce, lodgepole pine and Eastern balsam poplar–can get a root-hold in Greenland if given the chance.  “

BrianB
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 12:29 pm

Seems to me the most compelling argument here is “we don’t know how much of Greenland used to be green because….it’s covered in frickin ice.”
So how hot can it be?
The second most compelling is the graph produced by Greenland ice cores which demonstrate a slight modern blip up from the coldest couple of hundred years of the last several thousand.
A person with much sense says “Thank God!” not “We’re all doomed!”

Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 3:18 pm

Kip,
“Since it is TRUE that Greenland is and was green, then it is the writers at CNN and CCNow who are the ignorant, science denying ones”

Your source doesn’t actually say that it is TRUE. It says “It is possible that…”, “but this hasn’t been determined yet. If the presumption is true then”

But it also doesn’t say that “Greenland is and was green”, re the actual quote of Johnson:

““There’s a reason Greenland was called Greenland,” he said. “It was actually green at one point in time. And it’s been, since, it’s a whole lot whiter now.””

Your Wiki source says only “It is possible that the bottom lands of the southern fjords at that time were covered by highgrown shrub and surrounded by hills covered with grass and brush”

In fact, there is no evidence that Greenland is “a whole lot whiter now”.  As your photos purported to show, and others above do, the parts that may have been green then are green now.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 4:22 pm

Kip,
“You can use Google Earth and see for yourself — what’s the deal here?”
Yes, what is the deal? Johnson says
“It was actually green at one point in time. And it’s been, since, it’s a whole lot whiter now.”
And you keep trying to prove him right by showing how green it is now.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 5:33 pm

You might be the best Kip, but Nick is a lost cause. He would much sooner chew glass than concede the most obvious fact if doing so would detract from his religion. He’s a sad, lost soul.

Joe Campbell
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 10, 2021 9:51 am

Kip: Way overdone. Time to shake your head, say the man is “foolish”, and walk away. Gad!…

stewartpid
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 10, 2021 2:46 pm

I don’t think you will have any luck fixing Nick’s noggin …. you can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Hartog
July 8, 2021 10:19 pm

Someon should explain to them what ‘Greenland’ means.

July 8, 2021 10:23 pm

Thank you for a thorough-going statement of the insane position of the Climate News Cabal. I am glad that you were able to restrain yourself from the colourful language that I would have employed myself.  We are all being constantly fed this crap daily, hourly and it is great to see it being thoroughly demolished on a public site.
Unfortunately these people are immune to rational argument as they possess, at best, only half a brain.

griff
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 9, 2021 12:51 am

I don’t see rational argument – only ‘colourful language’.

Raven
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 1:11 am

Would you recognise a rational argument, Griff?

clarence.t
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 4:45 am

“I don’t see rational argument”

Precisely griff.

Just like you, CNC have no rational arguments.

…. and just like you, they are incapable of it.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 6:12 am

Of course YOU don’t, that is why you are always wrong in every blog you post in and the replies in the blogs are always putting YOU down for your lack evidence and cowardly running away.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 5:41 pm

griff old boy. Just who we’ve been looking for. BobM has been trying to reach you to ask a question.

Would you prefer to have lived during 1700 to 1775 when CO2 was so benign or the current “dangerous” period 1950-2025?

Tom Bostock
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 9, 2021 4:51 am

Nicholas, it is you, not that AGW alrarmist Griff, who argues rationally.

John in Oz
July 8, 2021 10:47 pm

Could this be why it was called Greenland?

Greenland.jpg
John in Oz
Reply to  John in Oz
July 8, 2021 10:56 pm

Also, from Wiki:

The Saga of Erik the Red states: “In the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it had a favorable name.”

Interestingly, as I apparently have Norse ancestry (as do many other UK-born people), there is also a note that Erik the Red travelled there:

Along with his extended family and his thralls (i.e. slaves or serfs)

Am I from Viking or slave ancestry? Can I get on the ‘my ancestors were slaves’ band-wagon? Do Viking Slaves Lives Matter? (apologies for the off-topic mention)

Harry Passfield
Reply to  John in Oz
July 9, 2021 1:53 am

John, I’m so happy to have come across your comment as now I can source the meaning of the phrase: ‘being in thrall to (a person)’. Cheers.

Jay Willis
Reply to  John in Oz
July 9, 2021 3:00 am

Fair play, maybe ‘Eric the red’ is not the best source of information on the correct use of naming with colours. But if greenland had been covered in ice, he may have plumped for something like ice land… err.

Anyhow, the photo was wrong, but if that’s all that eager Nick has to complain about, I see that as a credit to the article. For Nick continues to give a great service in that respect.

The original article is actually excellent in my view, and shows that rational arguments do have a chance. As Eric shows it’s an almost direct reversal of a set of arguments that are clearly working against the alarmists. Otherwise they wouldn’t be using them. I agree with the senator who sums it up very nicely. I shall be using that direct approach in more of my personal communications. It is bullshit and it should be called out for that.

bonbon
Reply to  John in Oz
July 9, 2021 8:59 am

Eric et al were not as dumb as the climate shoes, they used sunstones :
https://www.laserfocusworld.com/home/article/16549474/polarimetry-sky-conditions-for-viking-polarization-navigation-are-under-test
Iceland Spar and polarization in foggy conditions. Many have verified this.
The Sunstone: Secret of Viking Navigationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq9NE2qQzTo
There is a Viking text on the sunstone.
Eric had a problem back home (looks like a murder) and had to head west, found Greenland, and his business partner accidently ended up in New Foundland, naming it Vinland. They abandoned Greenland with the LIA. The Vatican has records of Greenland church wine production (the Vikings, amazingly became Christian). One should label the vintages MWP Reserve Selection.

Torgeir Hansson
Reply to  bonbon
July 9, 2021 10:19 am

Leiv Eirikson was Eirik The Red’s son.

July 8, 2021 11:12 pm

“I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is b~llsh~t.”

BRILLIANT!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Chaamjamal
July 9, 2021 7:02 am

“The defense’s entire opening statement will be stricken from the record…”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chaamjamal
July 9, 2021 5:11 pm

Johnson must be reading WUWT.

Rod Evans
July 8, 2021 11:16 pm

If the climate alarmists could de platform Descartes, they would, and are probably working on how to do that.
“I think therefore I am”

another ian
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 9, 2021 1:50 am

I suspect they’d have him say “I think, therefore it is”

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  another ian
July 9, 2021 6:03 am

“Them think, therefore they is.”
Woke Descartes

Rich Davis
Reply to  another ian
July 9, 2021 5:49 pm

I feel therefore you owe

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 9, 2021 1:54 am

The corollary to that is something the alarmists forget when they try to brainwash sceptics: ‘I am, therefore I think’.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 9, 2021 3:33 am

That is non inclusive and hateful language.

John
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 9, 2021 6:12 am

“I feel, therefore it is.”

Rick C
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 9, 2021 10:09 am

And interestingly, the full Rene Descartes quote is: “I doubt, therefore, I think. I think, therefore I am.”

Without having doubts about what you are told, there is little reason to think.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 11, 2021 3:22 am

“Thinking is hard so stop it”?

Izaak Walton
July 8, 2021 11:22 pm

Kip,
The statement that “more and more scientists are debunking climate change” is false. It is not an opinion but rather an assertion of fact. And trying to support it by a few books trying to debunk climate alarmism is nonsense since climate change can be both man made and true irrespective of whether or not people should be worried about it.

Anyone reading the scientific literature would realise that the number of papers in support of human caused climate change is increasing. In fact fewer and fewer scientists are claiming to debunk climate change.

M Courtney
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 8, 2021 11:45 pm

You are talking at cross-purposes.
It’s not that climate is changing that is being disputed. It’s the false allegation that climate change is dangerous that is disputed.

And you would be hard-pressed to find evidence of scientists writing papers saying that climate change is dangerous.

Indeed, the extreme scenarios that are used for the most alarmist discussions (RCP8.5) are now being objected to quite openly by more and more scientists.

Derg
Reply to  HAS
July 9, 2021 3:48 am

Carbonbrief 🤓

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Derg
July 9, 2021 10:41 am

Carbon underwear?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 9, 2021 5:51 pm

I chafe at the thought

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 9, 2021 12:22 am

Science is founded on empirical evidence, reproducible experiment and falsifiable hypotheses. None of those are present in AGW. The term “climate change” can be completely ignored because it’s simply equivocation. The literature supposedly promoting AGW is founded solely on models and relying on manipulated “data”, therefore it is NOT science at all.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 10, 2021 8:30 pm

We have a winner!

ZERO empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature. The wordl need not panic over “hypothetical bullshit,” which is exactly what the notion of CO2 driven climate change is.

clarence.t
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 9, 2021 12:39 am

Izzak,

I have been trying to find some real measured science to support the conjecture of warming by atmospheric CO2

Have hunted high and low, but cannot find anything except mumblings about tiny internal forcing that would easily by counteracted by the movement of air within the atmosphere.

Can you help please

Richard Page
Reply to  clarence.t
July 9, 2021 12:48 pm

There are few to no scientific papers that support man made climate change; most published ‘studies’ do not stand up to close scrutiny, either being so riddled with mistakes that they shouldn’t have been published in the first place, or are a circle-jerk of opinion pieces supported by other opinion pieces.

clarence.t
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 9, 2021 12:44 am

And yes, there are hundreds of papers showing that the idea of run-away warming is just a load of fantasy, based on absolutely nothing in the way of actual real science.

Just rancid, scientifically unsupportable “belief”..

You know what I mean, Izzak….. that anti-knowledge you continue to produce.

Last edited 22 days ago by clarence.t
Mike
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 9, 2021 1:03 am

”Anyone reading the scientific literature would realise that the number of papers in support of human caused climate change is increasing.”

So what?

Last edited 22 days ago by Mike
Frank Hansen
Reply to  Mike
July 9, 2021 1:53 am

The number of papers in support of human coursed climate change is increasing. It has to be unless some earlier papers on the subject are withdrawn. This applies to any type of counter. The number of deaths for a specific reason is also increasing unless some already dead are being brought back to life, and this seldom happens outside of Easter.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Frank Hansen
July 9, 2021 5:54 am

This applies to any type of counter.

One exception to this is voting machines in the U.S., which seem to produce negative vote increments with ease.

j t
Reply to  Mike
July 9, 2021 6:08 am

And WHY are any of those essentially NON-scientific papers being published? — because those who created and have been pushing ever since the AGW scam also CONTROL to a large degree what gets published, not because any of it is actually GOOD SCIENCE!!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mike
July 9, 2021 7:23 am

Governments around the globe and NGOs pay for those “studies” to support ideology, rent seeking and power. The corruption of CliSciFi is manifest.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 9, 2021 9:42 am

the number of papers in support of human caused climate change is increasing

You get what you pay for.

The government only funds papers that support the governments position.
Add to that the number of journals that simply refuse to print any paper that doesn’t support the alarmist position.

gbaikie
July 8, 2021 11:32 pm

“It’s a trope in political journalism to wonder whether high profile climate deniers are “in on the joke.” That is, do they realize privately that the science is unequivocal but cynically choose to claim the opposite in public? Or are they truly, hopelessly uninformed?”

I wonder if there is anyone who is denying that we are in an Ice Age.
An Ice Age which has going on for 34 million year and that last few million years has much colder than as compared to the time is began 34 million years ago. As in:
The current ice age began about 34 million years ago when ice sheets were first forming on Antarctica, followed by Greenland at least 18 million years ago, and finally on North America, which defined the beginning of the Quaternary period (about 2.6 million years ago).”
http://geology.teacherfriendlyguide.org/index.php/glaciers-mw/glaciers-iceages-mw

And our present interglacial period, called the Holocene, it been cooler than other interglacial periods. In our last interglacial period the Ocean levels rose to 4 to 9 meters above present sea levels and the Sahara desert was forest and grasslands and many parts of world were much warmer.
Does anyone deny it was *much* warmer in past interglacial periods- that there was vast forests where we currently have cold deserts {tundra} and in the hot deserts such the Sahara desert. And obviously life was flourishing globally. Not like current world which is 1/3 of land being deserts.
How much any denial about the warmer part of our Holocene which called “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.”
Again having forests where we currently have barren deserts, and global temperature have declining from 5000 years ago.
And does anyone deny the recent cool period which called Little Ice Age, and that sea levels have risen by about 8″ since than time.
And considering the warmth of Climate Optimum, one could argue we have past our warming peak of the Holocene period, and possibly be entering another glaciation period as soon as within the next 2000 years.
Or how about the obvious, a temperature of 15 C is not warm. And global surface air temperatures have been much warmer than 15 C

Vincent Causey
July 8, 2021 11:41 pm

I am not sure if I have quoted this before on WUWT before, but here goes –

During the Nuremberg trial an American told Herman Goering that “it couldn’t happen in America [the mass control and manipulation of the German people] because we are a democracy.” Goering replied “it doesn’t matter what kind of system you have – fascism, communism or a democracy – if you make the people afraid of something you can control them”.

When you see this kind of fear mongering going on today, you can see what it meant.

Reply to  Vincent Causey
July 8, 2021 11:46 pm
HAS
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 8, 2021 11:59 pm

OK take that back, to quote your source is seems he’s reported as saying: “voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Your point was …

Reply to  HAS
July 9, 2021 12:27 am

That is about making people angry, not afraid.

Jimmy Walter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 1:46 am

Actually, the basis of all three is fear. Anger results when you believe you can do something about what you are afraid of. So the Alarmists first make people afraid the world will end and then tell them they can do something about it with new laws and social ostracism. “Fear is the mind killer”.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 4:21 am

Fear and anger are intimately related emotional states. We hate what we fear, and vice versa. Try again.

John Tillman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 5:30 am

Putting the country in danger arouses fear.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 7:28 am

The people should be angry at the CliSciFi lies being put forward by our politicians and their brazen attempts to hurt our society, economy and energy systems. All based on UN IPCC climate models that have been shown to be grossly deficient, even in their own papers.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 5:57 pm

Yeah Nick, “attacked”, “danger”…these things never evoke fear, only anger.

You are such a sad, pathetic case.

James Stagg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 12:20 am
Dave Fair
Reply to  James Stagg
July 9, 2021 7:30 am

And any H.L. Mencken writing.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  James Stagg
July 9, 2021 1:09 pm

That’s a good quote with one proviso: it describes the war of aggression. There is no doubt that the peoples at the receiving end are really being attacked and do not need to be manipulated to defend themselves. As my father who lived through ww2 put it, you didn’t even fight for your king or queen, or a general, or a vague idea like democracy, you fight to protect your loved ones. Because if you don’t do it nobody will.

BrianB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2021 12:36 pm

Here’s a true quote for ya;

” The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

  • H L Mencken
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  BrianB
July 10, 2021 8:37 pm

Perhaps the best summation of the “climate crisis” ever penned.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Vincent Causey
July 9, 2021 12:38 am

Nick this time is right, but Göring did say something which comes quite close..

“Of course, the common people don’t want war […] But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always easy to get the people to go along, whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship. […] It is quite simple. You don’t need to do anything but tell the people they are under attack and accuse the pacifists of their lack of patriotism and claim that they are putting the country in danger. This method works in every country.” 

gbaikie
Reply to  Vincent Causey
July 9, 2021 9:03 pm

The problem with lefties like Herman Goering is they get their ass kicked, yet they
fail to learn anything.

The Left is a train wreck continuum of not learning.

July 9, 2021 12:32 am

I’m still waiting for a valid experiment that proves the greenhouse effect. Anyone know a single one?

clarence.t
Reply to  Zoe Phin
July 9, 2021 12:47 am

I’m sure Izzak must have one….. or maybe Nick. or Griff.

Or not 😉

griff
Reply to  Zoe Phin
July 9, 2021 12:52 am

Sure… there’s a large demonstration environment called ‘Earth’

Mike
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 1:05 am

Lol,

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 1:54 am

Not an experiment. No control for starters. Nature is what we observe.

Experiment is something designed carefully, where all parameters are controlled so the effect of changing x can be observed on y.

Last edited 22 days ago by ThinkingScientist
clarence.t
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 4:47 am

“large demonstration environment”

And it has produce zero evidence
..
… But you knew that, didn’t you, griff.

griff
Reply to  clarence.t
July 9, 2021 8:41 am

Apart from the rise in average temperatures, declining cryosphere, impacts on the biosphere, change in weather patterns and increase in extreme weather events and that sort of thing

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 11:17 am

How long is your record, Griff?

Derg
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 2:22 pm

“ extreme ”

Word used by skate boarders

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 8:53 pm

Average temperatures are meaningless. The “cryosphere” is always either increasing or decreasing, it is never static. There have been no changes in weather patterns, and no increase in “extreme” weather events.

Tell me, Griff. Which is better: Advancing glaciers, or receding glaciers? Those are the only two choices.

pHil R
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 4:59 am

Jeebus, you are clueless. Do you even understand the difference between a demonstration and an experiment?

Gregory Woods
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 5:00 am

Good Grief, griffy…

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 6:05 pm

Oh there you are again griff. Did you miss BobM’s question? Or are you afraid to answer for some reason?

Richard M
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 11:16 am

I’m particularly interested in the latest part of that demonstration.

https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/to/plot/uah6/from:2020/to/trend

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Zoe Phin
July 9, 2021 5:33 am

That’s a red herring argument. The existence of GE is not controversial. The question is, what does it mean for climate in general, and more specifically, what does it mean for today, with CO2 levels rising? At lower levels, CO2 undoubtedly has some effect, although it most certainly does not “drive” climate. The effect is more of a stabilizing one. At the somewhat higher levels of CO2 of today, the effect is diminished. And what the carbonistas conveniently like to ignore are the negative feedbacks like clouds.
So, does GE exist? Almost certainly. Does it drive climate? Certainly not. Should we even be worried about CO2? HELL NO! CO2, in fact, it is plant and planet-friendly, and beneficial to us humans. In fact, we need more of it, not less.

griff
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 9, 2021 8:42 am

But to many people here, the greenhouse effect IS controversial.

and of course human CO2 is currently the major climate driver, in addition to all the historical and natural climate drivers which have always driven Earth’s changing climate

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:49 am

Some, not many.

As to your claim that CO2 is the major driver of climate, the real world begs to differ.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 2:56 pm

No Griff, CO2 didn’t suddenly, magically become a driver of climate, let alone the major driver, simply because it is manmade, despite your ardent desire for that to be so.

Jackie Pratt
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 3:33 pm

haha, good one. ‘of course’

Richard M
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 10, 2021 12:29 pm

I’ve said the same thing in the past but I now think I was wrong. It is not the downwelling energy from GHGs that warms the surface. Since that is the most common meaning associated with the greenhouse effect, then I’ve come to accept that it is no more responsible for warming than is conduction from the atmosphere to the surface (which BTW is orders of magnitude higher).

What is the most important aspect of the atmosphere which allows the surface to be 33 C warmer? It is the ability of the atmosphere to emit energy to space. Not at all intuitive.

What this allows is the effective radiation height to be raised above the surface and then gravity distributes the energy equally among the atmospheric mass (mostly gases).

gbaikie
Reply to  Zoe Phin
July 11, 2021 1:52 pm

Greenhouse effect refers to the atmosphere, but I include the ocean as significant part of the greenhouse effect. Adding a pond to a greenhouse, increases the greenhouse effect of greenhouse.
So, solar pond could a valid experiment of greenhouse effect- sunlight passes thru transparent water, and heat is “trapped” below the water.
But the pseudo science of the theory of the greenhouse effect, wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Is different matter, it’s a theory without an author and similar other pseudo science stuff
like Marxism. And whole host of “things” which are kindly called “soft science” rather than
bat shit crazy stuff pretending it’s science. Which all seem to think the science is settled.
The pandemic gave a view of this “believe the science” idiocy.
Anyhow, the “greenhouse effect theory” is cargo cult. A cargo cult has some things right- as in there was a time US military flew planes to some islands and people thought it was great stuff. But it’s a cult.
Few important things missing from the theory is we living in Ice Age and the temperature of
all oceans [which averages about 3.5 C] determines whether you are in Ice Age or not.
This is known by everyone except the cargo cult believers. Or kind like cargo cult telling
you what airplanes are, and everyone knows what airplanes, are.
Anyhow, cults are not based on science, and science doesn’t disprove them, actually what science does provide a claim which could be disproven.
I am lukewarmer, it’s might be possible doubling of CO2 level will cause some increase in the global temperature of our cold world. And seems to me a doubling is about zero to . 5 C and
I agree with “everyone” that water vapor is the main “greenhouse gas”.
Can’t prove a doubling of CO2 can add to global temperature, as it’s too small effect and not enough time has past, And would rather argue it’s not more than .5 C or causes cooling [less than zero]. But effect water vapor seems quite noticeable.
But global warming is not hotter days, global warming is causing a more uniform global temperature, largely about warming regions around the polar regions {which are quite cold}.

griff
July 9, 2021 12:51 am

Except it isn’t ‘intentionally misleading’, is it?

This is reporting of science and policy based on the science… of actual observable impacts of climate change.

What motive do these ‘cabals’ have for pushing false news on climate?

Really, there’s a worldwide movement? Is somebody directing it? Oh, they just all adopted it independently? Again, why?

Until and unless climate skepticism abandons the victimisation/leftist plot narrative, it isn’t going to get traction…

Charlie
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 1:01 am

No to your first paragraph. A gaslighting operation is going on.

The why is a good question. There are pitifully few on the left who are skeptical of CAGW and the ludicrous policies suggested to stop it. Why is that?

griff
Reply to  Charlie
July 9, 2021 8:32 am

Well tell me exactly who is doing it?

I mean communism had Lenin working his socks off… name the conspirators!

Charlie
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:59 am

Answer my question, please.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Charlie
July 9, 2021 6:10 pm

Get in line please. BobM has priority. 🙂

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 6:09 pm

We don’t know your real name griff

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 9, 2021 8:56 pm

There are a lot of people commenting here whose names we don’t know. That’s a non-sequitur. If you demand it of Griff, you have to demand it of everyone.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 10, 2021 12:32 pm

I should have quoted his comment so that you could follow it

Well tell me exactly who is doing it?

I mean communism had Lenin working his socks off… name the conspirators!

We don’t know your real name griff

Get it now?

Mike
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 1:10 am

”This is reporting of science and policy based on the science… of actual observable impacts of climate change.”

There are no observable ”impacts” of climate change.
All we can see is a little less ice up north due to a spell of warm weather.

Disagree?
Then prove to me that the climate is actually changing. First let’s get the actual true definition right. (Hint,… it’s not the average weather over 30 years)
This from a kid’s site…..
”Climate is the average weather in a place over many years. While the weather can change in just a few hours, climate takes hundreds, thousands, even millions of years to change.

Last edited 22 days ago by Mike
griff
Reply to  Mike
July 9, 2021 8:33 am

A very persistent spell of warm weather, given that the arctic sea ice is still declining!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:53 am

It’s still declining? Really.
Arctic sea ice is still well above the lows of 2012.
If this death spiral that you are hoping for were actually happening, there would have been no recovery from 2012, much less a decade spent above it.

The earth as a whole has been cooling, and cooling substantially since 2016 or so.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  MarkW
July 9, 2021 3:22 pm

Arctic sea ice is still well above the lows of 2012.”

comment image

Arctic sea ice extent sets a new record low for this time of year on July 5, 2021, outpacing both 2012 (the lowest September extent on record) and 2020 (the second lowest extent on record). Image courtesy of ChArctic NSIDC.”

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 9, 2021 6:54 pm

Is there a reason we are limiting the discussion to just the arctic?
comment image?ssl=1

I mean, aside from the obvious.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
July 10, 2021 12:36 am

For my part the answer is obvious and indeed It was my post.

The statement was:
Arctic sea ice is still well above the lows of 2012.”

And I showed it was demonstrably false.
Just yet another of WUWT denizen’s “Alternative facts”.

You are aware that the Artic is bounded (largely) by land mass whereas the Antarctic is ‘not.
So what does that make possible?
What does wind do when allows unrestricted distance to blow sea-ice?

I know the penny never will drop on here about that fundamental difference between our 2 polar icecaps …..

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 9, 2021 8:58 pm

How is it compared to 1000 years ago? 2000? 5000? Don’t be so myopic.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 10, 2021 12:41 am

Again the “Alternative fact” statement was ….

Arctic sea ice is still well above the lows of 2012.

Which was countered with an ACTUAL fact.

Also we know why Arctic Sea-ice was lower (if it was – as that “fact” is never questioned here)

And that reason does not apply now.
Namely the extra TSI available over high latitude land masses during the HCO.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 10, 2021 8:00 am

Anthony, you need to understand the WUWT poster term used when they are caught spouting claim busting falsehoods – especially when the falsehood spotter is Nick Stokes, “Nitpicking”. Then, the goal post movement….

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 10, 2021 9:53 am

Selective TSI? That’s a good one. It’s still myopic, of anyone, to compare what happened 9 years ago to now. Those changes are irrelevant to longer time scales.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 11:19 am

How long is your record, Griff?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 8:57 pm

This obviously is a different griff, since he/she/it is actually responding to posts.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 1:57 am

You are the epitome of a “useful idiot”.

griff
Reply to  Climate believer
July 9, 2021 8:33 am

Well at least I’m useful… you? Not so much.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:53 am

griff doesn’t mind being an idiot, so long as someone is able to make use of him.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 12:59 pm

Of course you are useful Griffy. You are a unique and valuable member of society and are much valued for your contributions. Now, be a good lad – kneel and drop your trousers, I need to park my bicycle.

And Clench!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Climate believer
July 9, 2021 6:14 pm

Idiot, true.

Useful? No way!

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 2:25 am

On the “observable impacts of climate change”..

If one accepts that humans have an effect on the climate, one must also accept that in a chaotic system we must, by the law of averages, have made things better at least as often as we have made them worse. So, as I sit here on a beautiful July day, where the temperature is about 22ºC (just about perfect for the time of year at this latitude) and with the occasional fluffy white cloud sailing across the azure blue sky, I thank humans that I am not suffering the drought/flood/storm/tempest/blizzard/wildfire that I should be having if it weren’t for the demon CO2.

Or do we not allow for perfect weather in the “observable impacts”?

Jim Veenbaas
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 3:21 am

This happens in science all the time and you should know that – plate tectonics, eugenics. The climate change industrial complex is fed by trillions in government spending across the globe, everything from wind and solar subsidies to research funding. I’m always amazed that 50,000 people attended the climate change conference in Paris. How many of them spent their own money to attend the event? This is a literal army of people paid by their respective governments and NGOs to spread their honestly held, misinformed views. At some point in the future, there will be scientific soul searching about the mechanics behind the climate change industrial complex, and how a marginal scientific theory took root to become a global movement.

griff
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
July 9, 2021 8:36 am

And exactly why would dozens of individual govts pick on climate change as something to fund? If it wasn’t happening?

what benefits have they accrued from this over the last 20 or 30 years?

AlexBerlin
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:15 am

More control on the populace, more ways of pressuring people into accepting less and less freedom with more and more restrictions. Just what Fascists love.

bonbon
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:21 am

Keyword ‘fund’ , you got it.
See above.
What have they accrued? An utterly bankrupt irredeemable financial system about to implode. The Great Reset is their wild-eyed desperate grasping for a bailout.
Being useful to this cabal has a high price.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  bonbon
July 9, 2021 8:59 pm

All that funding and research, and they still don’t know what ECS is better than 40 years ago. Bravo!

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 2:12 pm

The CAGW fr@ud has been enormously profitable for the Chinese, who have sold billions of dollars of solar panels and wind turbines to clueless Western nations. Of course, the Chinese are too intelligent to fall for the sc@m themselves.

Derg
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 2:25 pm

Lol

clarence.t
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 4:49 am

Wrong as always griff.

This cabal is a purely anti-information, activist, propaganda bunch of zero-science nonces.

You would fit right in

griff
Reply to  clarence.t
July 9, 2021 8:35 am

an imaginary cabal.

I mean, how did they all get together?

why pick on climate change? If it really is cooling they’d get just as much mileage milking ‘advancing glaciers will crush Philadephia’

Mr.
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:05 am

It’s all about common self-interest serving common purpose, Griff –
academics > bureaucrats > politicians > media

A self-perpetuating circle. A cabal.

Mr.
Reply to  Mr.
July 9, 2021 11:42 am

should have written “common purpose serving common self-interest”

pHil R
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 5:02 am

If nothing else, it’s painfully clear that 1) you are not a scientist, and 2) you don’t even have a clue as to what science is.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 6:03 am

RBS-inflicted Griffie-poo uses the same, tired irrational arguments he always uses, of “motives” and his much-loved straw man arguments. So predictable.

griff
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 9, 2021 8:37 am

Well give me some actual evidence, why don’t you!

pHil R
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 10:51 am

You wouldn’t know :actual evidence if it walked up and kicked you in the shin.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 11:20 am

Here you go.

tree-stump-climate.jpg
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 2:58 pm

Evidence of what? That you’re an idiot? Plenty of that!!!

mikebartnz
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 12:46 am

Says Griff who never uses any.

Ebor
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 7:05 am

So, let’s try a different tactic here. Let’s assume Griff is correct (regardless of whether his view has any scientific merit) – the question then is what the heck does anything that the US or Europe might do to “combat climate change” of any significance if China continues to build out coal and gas power plants at the rate they are. The atmosphere is the ultimate commons in that sense. Any thoughts on that Griff?

griff
Reply to  Ebor
July 9, 2021 8:40 am

The USA and the EU/UK are themselves considerable generators of CO2, so worth them taking action on those grounds.

And without them taking action, then China absolutely isn’t going to shift.

If China doesn’t start delivering, that’s something the rest of the world will have to consider.

For a supposedly totalitarian state, there seems to be a lot of latitude about what any area of China does or doesn’t do on reducing fossil fuel and the top brass remain inscrutable

Ebor
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 5:46 am

Wow. So, we should serve as an object lesson to China? How naive.

bonbon
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:16 am

The motive is not hidden, it is an Open Conspiracy. Just listen to ex-Bank of England Chief Mark Carney, and the Davos Great Reset of Prince Charles. Carney as the UN Climate Finance activist. $Trillions are at stake. BlackRock is fully onboard.
As Ed Snowden remarked this week it took him 8 years to fathom why all kinds of conspiracy theories are thrown around – people cannot face reality, the actual open conspiracy.
High Finance as the City of London calls it.

The sound of hooves at the green finance trough is appalling.

Last edited 22 days ago by bonbon
MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:51 am

And griff crops up with his copyrighted claims that anything that is different from last year, is proof of catastrophic global warming.

griff really does get bent out of shape when we quote his leaders about the reasons why they support the global warming scam. They have been quite open about their desires to eliminate capitalism and force the world to adopt socialism/communism with them as the leaders.

Mike
July 9, 2021 12:58 am

do they realize privately that the science is unequivocal but cynically choose to claim the opposite in public? Or are they truly, hopelessly uninformed?”

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Jimmy Walter
July 9, 2021 12:58 am

Flower Workers on Strike (like Greta’s sign)
Their lead paragraph above is called “projection” or claiming your opponents are doing what you are doing: “It’s a trope in political journalism to wonder whether high profile climate [alarmists] are “in on the joke.” That is, do they realize privately that the science is unequivocal but cynically choose to claim the opposite in public? Or are they truly, hopelessly uninformed?”

Flower strike.jpeg
Last edited 22 days ago by Jimmy Walter
Jimmy Walter
July 9, 2021 1:47 am

The UK-based rapper known as Zuby:

20 Things I’ve Learned (Or Had Confirmed) About Humanity During The “Pandemic”

1. Most people would rather be in the majority, than be right.

2. At least 20% of the population has strong authoritarian tendencies, which will emerge under the right conditions.

3. Fear of death is only rivaled by the fear of social disapproval. The latter could be stronger.

4. Propaganda is just as effective in the modern day as it was 100 years ago. Access to limitless information has not made the average person any wiser.

5. Anything and everything can and will be politicized by the media, government, and those who trust them.

6. Many politicians and large corporations will gladly sacrifice human lives if it is conducive to their political and financial aspirations.

7. Most people believe the government acts in the best interests of the people. Even many who are vocal critics of the government.

8. Once they have made up their mind, most people would rather to commit to being wrong, than admit they were wrong.

9. Humans can be trained and conditioned quickly and relatively easily to significantly alter their behaviors — for better or worse.

10. When sufficiently frightened, most people will not only accept authoritarianism, but demand it.

11. People who are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” are often well researched and simply ahead of the mainstream narrative.

12. Most people value safety and security more than freedom and liberty, even if said “safety” is merely an illusion.

13. Hedonic adaptation occurs in both directions, and once inertia sets in, it is difficult to get people back to “normal.”

14. A significant % of people thoroughly enjoy being subjugated.

15. “The Science” has evolved into a secular pseudo-religion for millions of people in the West. This religion has little to do with science itself.

16. Most people care more about looking like they are doing the right thing, rather than actually doing the right thing.

17. Politics, the media, science, and the healthcare industries are all corrupt, to varying degrees. Scientists and doctors can be bought as easily as politicians.

18. If you make people comfortable enough, they will not revolt. You can keep millions docile as you strip their rights, by giving them money, food, and entertainment.

19. Modern people are overly complacent and lack vigilance when it comes to defending their own freedoms from government overreach.

20. It’s easier to fool a person than to convince them that they have been fooled.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jimmy Walter
July 10, 2021 10:02 am

Looks like he got a lot of that knowledge from elsewhere. Which is still good.

Greg
July 9, 2021 1:54 am

“scientists agree that climate change is real, human caused, and very dangerous.” That is NOT true.

The trouble is, what is written is literally true. You only need two scientist’s names to justify that claim. The Guardian pulls that stunt all the time.

What they are implying is “[ALL] scientists agree that…..” and that is what the reader is supposed to take home. So it is intentionally very misleading but technically true.

Peta of Newark
July 9, 2021 3:13 am

Here’s a beaut.
Encapsulates my ravings, also Lomborg’s recently.

We have all the pieces to the jigsaw. But because of the insane Cause & Effect error brought on by CO2 and the GHGE, we’re incapable of assembling it properly..

Headline (Telegraph): “How climate change may be making us smaller
So, I say that eating sugar (cooked starch) makes you short and fat (and diabetic, cardio diseased etc etc)
It especially makes the girls fat around their nether regions and thus makes it very difficult to deliver babies. Low life expectancy when they themselves and their babies die during the girls first attempt at delivering a baby.
But the starch comes from land that is constantly being ploughed, tilled and cultivated.
It dries it out, lowers the albedo and thus, makes things ‘warm’

Thus, short fat people come from deserts, deserts of their own making.

In contrast and perfectly contrary to Modern Medicine and ‘common sense’, eating fat makes you tall and thin
And Fat Eaters live on grasslands and in forests.
Places that are perennially damp and also,again quite contrary to what ‘most everyone thinks, greenery has the same albedo as (old) snow and ice
e.g. Pasturelands and forests put up an albedo of about 0.4, same as multi-year snow (new snow= 0.8)
Compare to ploughed land which if dry has an albedo of 0.15 or 0.10 if wet.

Now then :
Abe Lincoln was 6ft 4″ tall and was not a tall man amongst his peers
The average US male is now 5ft 9″ tall The girls average 5ft 3″
Climate Change (desertification) has been going on for ‘some little time’

Did everyone notice how, inside a generation, the height of the average Japanese person increased by 6″ in the aftermath of WW2?
It was the arrival of Fast Food – burgers basically.
Yet again, cause/effect got mangled when ‘scientists’ asserted that ‘all the extra protein‘ caused the Japanese growth spurt.
Bollox
The extra fat made the Japanese taller.

The proof of how/why they were deficient in fat prior to WW2 is clearly demonstrated by their current Whale Hunting exploits and the lengths they go to to continue catching whales
They want the saturated fat. Whales were their only (large) reliable supply
Old habits are hard to give up

And we burned the stuff in lamps. Lord help us pleeeeeeze..

Unfortunately, so it is with sugar eating, even before and as many will assert, sugar is more addictive than either nicotine or cocaine.

and we give it to children so as to get them to behave. sigh

What A Complete Train Wreck

Last edited 22 days ago by Peta of Newark
JackW
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 9, 2021 4:21 am

Two thumbs up!

bill Johnston
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 9, 2021 5:59 am

How does life style figure into the equation? Our ancestors had to work harder for their food and fiber. Today’s “labor-saving” devices mean more leisure time. Lowered physical activity. I would guess that changes in diet would also have an effect on the bodies metabolism. More questions. Fewer answers.

observa
July 9, 2021 3:54 am

In fact, studies and surveys repeatedly show that the public is urgently concerned about climate change.

But the joke for the doomsters is how much they want to pay to walk all the BS talk-
Analysis: Europe’s carbon push stokes backlash fears (msn.com)

Sparko
July 9, 2021 3:59 am

You know, I can see a time when the governments will be funding all the media out of the public purse, because the lack of trust means people stop paying for it.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Sparko
July 9, 2021 7:40 am

We are on that path definitely as in many present cases the legacy media are being financed, probably at a loss, by billionaire oligarchs out of their profits in other ventures.

harold gott
July 9, 2021 4:02 am

why do all the people who support climate action only support making things more expensive. If flying is bad lets just eliminate it. No one can fly, not even the rich or the politicians. Why do they think they are more important than we are. And the man that is going into space, why is it ok for him to create a new industry that will be carbon dioxide intensive. And that is another thing they always say carbon released to the air, but I cannot see any black sooty material which carbon is floating in the air. Just my thoughts

Derg
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 2:32 pm

“ — the Climate Alarmists — are, at their core, Anti-Human.”

+ 1,000

Bruce Cobb
July 9, 2021 4:30 am

“Covering Climate Now”. Heh. I think what they mean is “Caterwauling Climate Catastrophe Always.”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 9, 2021 6:01 am

Project Veritas has a CNN insider video of an upper-level type person stating quite plainly that, now that DJ Trump is no longer president, CNN’s main mission is to hype the climate emergency.

The strategy is not working very well, all their talking heads are hemorrhaging viewers.

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 9, 2021 10:01 am

The Woke tell us that it was OK for CNN to tell lies about Trump in order to drive him out of office, because Trump was evil.
How do they know Trump was evil?
Because all the things they heard about Trump on CNN.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
July 9, 2021 12:30 pm

Write in circles you write.

OweninGA
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 10, 2021 7:19 pm

unfortunately, that is the level of discourse with my leftist relatives. Everything goes in circles.

Jeff Corbin
July 9, 2021 6:10 am

It takes more than believers and/or cynical journalists to propel a massive global propaganda-thought/mind control enterprise. It takes big money. An effort as big the global climate change pan-propaganda machine, creates and moves economies at many levels. Who are the deep pockets and how is the return on investment structured?

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Jeff Corbin
July 9, 2021 7:58 am

Derivative markets make it possible to place bets in favor of and against enterprises. So, place a bet against fossil fuels. Now arrange a bit of additional investment to make use of friendly media, or “useful idiots”, or other zealous groups to help spread fear or anger about fossil fuels, and this will help advance the derivative position you have taken.

It is a matter of applying leverage through small amounts of side investments. There is always the possibility of using the gains made through derivatives to purchase (buying low) an enterprise battered down to an unreasonable valuation through some manipulation. Sometimes the manipulation is political, or even through insider information.

griff
Reply to  Kevin kilty
July 9, 2021 8:30 am

So you can show me lots of positions betting against fossil fuels then?

Derg
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 2:34 pm

They are called unreliable windmills and solar panels

griff
Reply to  Jeff Corbin
July 9, 2021 8:30 am

There aren’t any, are there? any more than there’s any organised leftist drive on climate change, or cabals of journalists, or scientists desperate for grants.

None of you can actually show any of these many conspirators.

But I can point you to any number of fossil fuelled scientists and think tanks!

bonbon
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:30 am

For the irony challenged, BlackRock sounds like a piece of coal, is the largest hedge evah, and is totally green. Rocks are not all what they seem to be.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 3:22 pm

Check out this fossil, Griffie.

tree-stump-climate.jpg
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 8:27 pm

Every democratic member of congress, for a fair few. Soros, Bezos, Gates. Need more?

bonbon
Reply to  Jeff Corbin
July 9, 2021 9:27 am

Make just a little effort to check BlackRock, the world’s largest hedge fund. They call this a Regime Change (at the FED confab at Jackson Hole). After all, this is a central banker’s sandbox, they know finance. Vast sums are available, and the green credit fountain is about to be opened. The biggest bubble of all history is in the offing. It will bust, and you will have to bail it out. Get it?

Sara
July 9, 2021 7:12 am

I have strong opinions on this topic, but have restrained myself. – Kip Hansen

An understatement, if there ever was one.

I have strong opinions on the topic, as well, but — it’s called “Greenland” because it WAS green (and so was Iceland) when the Vikings/Norse moved there from Iceland when it got hit by a prolonged snow squawk. Iceland has a lot of open landscape now, quite user-friendly if you’re a farmer. So does Finland – gorgeous photos of Finland’s open areas and fjords and forests show up online. Doesn’t mean anything other than seasons and seasonal changes, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

Climate changes over a prolonged period of time. Seasonal changes and wacko weather are short-term change and VERY VERY normal. When does that sink in with Those People? It’s obvious that this is proselytizing the way people do when they’re converting to a new religion.

I truly do want to see what happens when (or even IF) they ever get caught out in a freak snowstorm, one that was not predicted, in the middle of nowhere…. but they are already living in Nowhere Land….

Last edited 22 days ago by Sara
griff
Reply to  Sara
July 9, 2021 8:28 am

It is Greenland thanks to the earliest recorded Real Estate vendor’s description…!

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 3:23 pm

Were there any trees like this back then, Griffie?

tree-stump-climate.jpg
Sara
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 10, 2021 5:42 am

Even if they don’t do their own shopping, I still want to see them caught out in a freak snowstorm – an unpredicted one, perhaps with a large enough wet load to pile up drifts up to 4’6″ in one short time – and wait until Spring meltback to find out where they were…. It’s that last scene from “Fargo”, where the remaining thief looks one way to find a landmark, sees nothing, and then looks the other way and sees nothing, and it’s (Canada standing in for)( the Dakotas…. and…. 🙂
I know they don’t ever go outside, that they live cocooned lives, and exist in temps no higher or lower than 77F, but….
OK, that was naughty of me and I admit it, but a girl’s gotta have some fun.

Last edited 21 days ago by Sara
George Daddis
July 9, 2021 7:46 am

This type of “Climate News Stories” is one thing but children are exposed to this nonsense during 13 years of public schooling in the US (Ol’ Joe forgot Kindergarten in his proposal to extend free “public” education.

Andy Pattullo
July 9, 2021 7:51 am

Climate change is very dangerous. We are at a low period of solar activity. If that persists and the theories linking solar activity to climate are accurate then we could slide back into something resembling the little ice age. Temperatures would fall, ice advance, growing seasons shorten and human misery and death increase. More alarming is that, by geologic evidence, we are near the end of the inter-glacial period in which all organized human society arose and thrived. Should that come to a screeching end, try to imagine much the land where billions of us live covered again by mile thick sheets of ice.

A mild and generally beneficial increase in global temperatures since the little ice age is the opposite of dangerous. We should celebrate that warming and the plentiful fossil fuel energy that allowed us to reach our current level of comfort, health and abundance. Only a lunatic or a sociopath would look at the evidence and wish to return to glaciation.

griff
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
July 9, 2021 8:27 am

Research shows that with the anthropogenic warming already achieved, we have postponed any ice age by a few millennia.

Really, there’s no prospect at all of a new ice age this or even next century. Is there?

AlexBerlin
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 9:27 am

No more than there’s a prospect of any dangerous warming. True. Sensible people wouldn’t impair their societies because of things that MIGHT happen after their death. Nobody with political power or insight today will even be alive beyond 2100. So all we ought to care for is that the part of the world we live in enjoys maximum wealth, maximum liberty, and maximum comfort while we are in it. Let those who come after us readjust it to what _they_ might need. IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS TO WORRY if oil might run out in 500 years, or the world might become inhabitable in 5000 years. We are here NOW, and it is our moral duty to optimize our own lives by all means we technologically dispose of. Including plastics and nuclear energy and fossil fuels and pesticides as needed. The State has NO BUSINESS giving out “environmental” rules and putting taxes on energy and other necessities of life.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  AlexBerlin
July 9, 2021 10:05 am

I agree, and would add that trying to make critical decisions now that may destroy modern society in order to preserve a future we can’t see, can’t predict and may in fact damage by wrong-headed actions is a fools game.

griff
Reply to  AlexBerlin
July 10, 2021 1:21 am

But it is the current and immediate effects, ones likely to increase in the near future, we need to worry about.

e.g. Heatwave hitting Nevada this weekend after records across W coast – and heatwaves in Finland, Russia, e Europe and Siberia.

Here in the UK nearly every year since 2000 we have had damaging floods and storms, which are getting worse…

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 9:13 pm

which are getting worse…

Another assertion without any evidence to back it up – not to mention that, whether true or not, it is NOT any evidence that:

  1. Human CO2 emissions drive atmospheric CO2 levels;
  2. Atmospheric CO2 levels drive the Earth’s temperature;
  3. Higher “average” temperature makes weather “more extreme.”

Note that item 3 is a claim identical to that made with respect to COOLING “average” temperatures during the 70s “Global Cooling” fear-mongering that also was supposedly caused by human activities, specifically fossil fuel use (through a slightly different intervening mechanism).

Also note that some of the same scientists (cough::Stephen Schneider:: cough) were on BOTH the “Global Cooling” AND “Global Warming” bandwagons.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 10:02 am

“Research shows that with the anthropogenic warming already achieved, we have postponed any ice age by a few millennia.”

What research specifically? To the best of my knowledge we don’t know all of what triggers re-glaciation or how fast it might come upon us. You are most likely correct that we won’t see it in the near future but it is a bit of overreach to say we know it has been postponed by a few millennia due to a very modest increase in CO2 when glaciation happened in the past at much higher CO2 levels.
If your claim is based on climate models, then you are being far too generous about models that haven’t been able to get most critical aspect of climate correct over a few decades.

griff
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
July 10, 2021 1:22 am
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 8:30 pm

From your link:

“[A]nthropogenic CO2 will still be in the atmosphere in 50,000 years’ time, and even 100,000 years, which is enough to prevent any glaciation.”

“[The next ice age is] not worth worrying about compared to immediate concerns about damaging human-caused climate change expected over the coming decades if no action is taken to mitigate this likelihood.”

Both of those are rampant specialtion. 100k year CO2 residence time??? HAHAHA!!!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 10:03 am

Models are not science, and they are not research.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
July 9, 2021 3:25 pm

How warm was it back when this tree was thriving, Griffie-poo?

tree-stump-climate.jpg
griff
Reply to  David Kamakaris
July 10, 2021 1:23 am

The issue is how warm will it be next year, next decade, for rest of the century.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 8:32 pm

If we don’t know what happened in the past, everything that happens now will seem “unprecedented”. That is truly head in the sand thinking. Good job.

Doonman
July 9, 2021 9:11 am

Why is it that the Covering Climate Now journalists never mention the tropical tropospheric hotspot, which is the fingerprint of human caused global warming?

Don’t they like reporting about climate? I would think they would.

Why is it that the Covering Climate Now journalists never mention the periodic ENSO heating of the earths atmosphere that is 100% natural?

Don’t they like reporting about climate? I would think they would.

Why is it that the Covering Climate Now journalists never mention the periodic years of no observable trend in global warming while CO2 emissions continue unabated?

Don’t they like reporting about climate? I would think they would.

Why is it that the Covering Climate Now journalists never mention the failed predictions of climate scientists who dire warnings of disasters with timelines never seem to come true?

Don’t they like reporting about climate? I would think they would.

Journalists are supposed to report the news about a subject as it happens. When they don’t, its not journalism, its propaganda. People who engage in propaganda always have an agenda.

That’s the way the world works. It can’t be said enough.

Smart Rock
July 9, 2021 11:19 am

Kip says: “The Climate News Cabal Just Can’t Quit”
Of course they can’t quit. Why would they quit when they’re winning?

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 9, 2021 11:23 am

The pretend-journalists in CCNow are so steeped in eco-disinformation that they don’t even realise it.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 9, 2021 12:11 pm

The indoctrinated mind has a wonderful ability to ignore that which is right in front of their eyes. I’m sure CCNew are convinced they are right, just like witchfinders and inquisiteurs were convinced they did the Lord’s work. History teaches that such delusions only are stopped when ordinary people realise what’s up and are fed up with it.

BrianB
July 9, 2021 12:14 pm

–“Only very few scientists public state, in published work, that climate change is currently “very dangerous””–

And therein lies the problem. The majority of climate scientists who find the A in AGW compelling but the C in CAGW not credible keep their mouths shut either because they don’t want the hassle of telling the truth or they favor the funding gravy train the loudmouth Mann’s of the world keep chugging down the track.
Either way it is in their power to end the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!” BS but they choose to take the easy way out.
A pox on their houses too.

lee riffee
July 9, 2021 3:31 pm

It’s a trope in political journalism to wonder whether high profile climate deniers are “in on the joke.” That is, do they realize privately that the science is unequivocal but cynically choose to claim the opposite in public? Or are they truly, hopelessly uninformed?”

Here is how I would re-word this – “It’s a trope in political journalism to wonder whether high profile chickens are “in on the joke.” That is, do they realize privately that Col. Sanders is unequivocally acting in their best interests, but cynically choose to claim the opposite in public? Or are they truly, hopelessly uninformed?”

The question to these CNC clowns is this – why on earth would anyone want to legitimize something that promises to make their life miserable, or even cause their untimely demise?

BTW, lots of ancient societies “did something” about climate change – they sacrificed animals and often times other people in bloody rituals in order to placate various deities they believed would grant them perfect weather. I really see very little difference to what is going on today. Why would someone not want to see their first born child tossed into a well to try and change that which humans have no control over? Well, duh….

Tom Abbott
July 9, 2021 4:51 pm

From the article: “It’s a trope in political journalism to wonder whether high profile climate deniers are “in on the joke.” That is, do they realize privately that the science is unequivocal”

LOL !

Tom Abbott
July 9, 2021 6:21 pm

A new Rasmussen polls says 58 percent of Americans polled say the Media is “The Enemy of the People”!

That’s a good sign.

Trump had a lot to do with this. The Leftwing Media brought this on themselves with their spewing of political lies.

Leftwing Propagandists *are* the enemies of the people. No doubt about it. They lie to the people in an attempt to undermine our society and nation and turn it into a socialist hell-hole.

At least, a majority of the people are on to them now.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 10, 2021 12:56 am

A new Rasmussen polls says 58 percent of Americans polled say the Media is “The Enemy of the People”!

Not a surprise.
Thats is precisely what a certain recent POTUS encouraged them to believe.
Do you know of the history of Demogoges That came to power by restricting “Alternative facts”.
Try Germany under Hitler.
Now China, N Korea, Turkey, Russia.
What a pathetic thing to think.
Free press under a democracy is just that, free to present both sides of the polarity (that seems rabid in the US at least).
Under said certain POTUS it wouldn’t have been if it were possible for him.
You should thank Christ for the US constitution else you would have had another Xi Jinging or Putin as POTUS for life (mind Recent POTUS really, really admired Putin)
Result: wall to wall Fox News.
Under endless “Alternative facts”.
Which is fine if you worship there.
So what will the other >50% of the pop do?
Lie back and take it?
Really? Ya think?

In short people should learn from history.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 10, 2021 9:49 am

Do you know of the history of Demogoges That came to power by restricting “Alternative facts”.

Try Germany under Hitler.

Now China, N Korea, Turkey, Russia.

Yes, I do.

Check out:
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/todays-blacklisted-american-youtube-shuts-down-channel-that-routinely-broadcasts-trump-rallies/

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 11, 2021 5:20 am

If you mean Youtube.

Last I checked it is not a Demagog (as a person at the head of Government).
Which Trump most certainly was and who tried his best to overturn democracy …. whilst sucking up to Putin.

Ya’d all like to live in Russia??
Just because you may have liked what he did.
Doesn’t give you the justification to let him take over the US Constitution and become President for life …. ala Putin, Xi Jingping, Kim and, most recently Lukashenko in Belarus.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 10, 2021 8:35 pm

You really are delusional. Biden’s handlers are twice as tyrannical as CNN told us Trump was. And we know, by their own admission, that they were mostly lying.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 11, 2021 5:20 am

If you say so.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 11, 2021 4:36 am

“Thats is precisely what a certain recent POTUS encouraged them to believe.”

Yes, and for a damn good reason: The Leftwing Media *are* liars and propagandists.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 11, 2021 5:13 am

And I contend – so are the “right wing” media.

SO shall we agree?….

ALL extremes are bad.
Just because you prefer one of the polarities, it is not wise to scrap all media and have one that only answers to the bidding of he/she that ordered it.
Just common sense.
Destruction of Democracy – which Churchill described as “The worst system of government – except for all the others we’ve tried”

Gordon A. Dressler
July 10, 2021 9:46 am

From the quoted excerpt of CCNow‘s article included in the above overall article:
“This, despite the fact that only one in five Americans realize that scientists agree that climate change is real, human caused, and very dangerous.”

Notice the sleight-of-hand trick being played there?

OK, CCNow, I’m calling you out on that statement. Please provide the reference study/poll/publication that objectively establishes that “scientists agree that climate change” is human caused AND very dangerous.

Lacking such an objective, independent reference, I must conclude that you merely made this up and are claiming it as established fact . . . shame on you.

n.b.: By this very statement, CCNow is asserting that there was no such thing as climate change prior to humans beginning to use significant amounts of fossil fuels about 300 years ago, in the early 1700’s, with the introduction of the commercial steam engine. That is patently ridiculous!

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 10, 2021 9:55 am

As someone pointed out up thread, “scientists agree” was probably deliberately chosen to leave the impression that it refers to all or most scientists, and it could simply mean you can find two scientists would be willing to go on the record. 

However you raise an additional interesting point demonstrating the sloppiness of the language. Does “human caused” mean partially or exclusively? It isn’t clear and probably the wording was deliberately chose to leave the impression that scientists agree it’s exclusively or almost exclusively caused by humans while having a fallback position that the defenders could claim it means some of it during some time. 

Force them to nail down exactly what they mean, and the statement won’t be anywhere near as powerful.

Last edited 21 days ago by Stephen Philbrick
July 21, 2021 8:30 am

Would the climate alarmist quacks please explain how man made CO2 melted the giant ice sheets that covered about a third of what is now the US? And that was, um, 15,000 years ago? Bunch of liars, frauds, grifters, and eco-terrorists.

%d bloggers like this: