We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, July 22. 2017
Below, I have the now-infamous Marc Morano 'Climate Hustle' documentary that so unnerved the delegates at the Paris climate accords in December of 2015.
Luckily, Mr. Moreno skipped town just before the storm troopers arrived.
Close one, Marc!
Before we get to the video, allow me to set the background with a few relevant links and quotes. You're welcome to skip ahead and watch it, of course; I'm just posting the following to show that the claims made in the documentary are hardly unique.
That's 15 years of 'last chances'.
Then we have the now-infamous "97% of all scientists agree" meme that both Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama have cited as proof that this is our, well, last chance to save the planet. The video below does a delightful job of totally dismantling this fraudulent statistic.
This brings us to Al Gore. Say, what's that coming out of the smokestacks in his 2006 documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'?
As any good Alarmist will tell you, global warming means both more hurricanes as well as stronger ones. But unfortunately...
Tornadoes, too, are forecast to increase due to you-know-what. But unfortunately...
The documentary does an excellent job of destroying both Al Gore and all of the 'severe weather' memes we're inundated with these days.
It then harkens us back to the 70's, when 'global cooling' was all the rage.
Or, was it? Let's check the faithful Wikipedia, shall we?
Of course, if rewriting history is their goal, I'd say they've got their work cut out for them. For a truly amazing list, glance over this page.
The video also has some revealing tidbits from the past, like how the Greenland ice sheet and arctic sea ice were thinner back in the 30's than they are today.
It also interviews some former leading Alarmists, all of which proves to be a real eye-opener.
So, On With The Show!
This is slightly over an hour long, so settle down, grab a drink and maybe some munchies and enjoy it to its fullest. There have been a number of global warming debunking videos over the years, but this is the cream of the crop. Click on the little gadget on the right of the tool bar to pop it open to full-screen size.
Quite revealing, wasn't it?
One aspect the documentary doesn't touch upon much is how badly the Alarmists have lost the battle over the past few years. Here are some examples.
First, the infamous Pew Research poll from 2009 that asked Americans to prioritize 20 subjects by order of importance — whereupon 'global warming' came in dead last.
Then they specifically asked the public about just global warming:
Then there's Yahoo News. For the uninitiated, Yahoo News is a left-leaning links site. They constantly feature opinion pieces from such far-left blog sites as the Daily Beast and the Huffington Post, passing them off as 'news' articles. As such, you would expect its readership to be filled with a bunch of global warming-loving liberals.
There are over 3,000 comments, and you have to look long and hard to find one that isn't somehow mocking or ridiculing the article.
This brings us to the recent election:
And then there's the rest of the world:
That's particularly telling, because one common meme among the greenies is that Americans are dumb and simply don't know what's good for them. That's why we need the greenies; to understand that we immediately need to quit eating red meat, driving gasoline cars, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, in order to save the planet. But the U.N. poll is from numerous countries.
Also, while it would be easy to dismiss a Pew or Rasmussen poll because it only surveyed 1,500 people, the U.N. poll encompassed over nine million people, from multiple age groups and economic strata. So it's the real deal.
Meanwhile, back in America...
People in the news media aren't fools. They recognize what's trending and what's not. And it's easy to tell from both Nielsen ratings and web page views. If the latest article on Kim Kardashian receives a million views and the article on how global warming is going to kill us all by the year 2035 unless we take action NOW receives 1,836 views, well, that says something.
Suddenly the phrase end of an era springs to mind.
And not a moment too soon.
For your personal viewing pleasure, a download link for the 'Climate Hustle' video is here.
My own piece on global warming, whereupon I dismantle the entire scheme piece-by-piece, is here. It starts at the very beginning of this epic saga with Mt. Kilimanjaro, touches upon why NASA's Jim Hanson should be labeled an international eco-criminal and thrown into prison for fomenting a movement that is literally destroying entire nations, as well as the many and varied reasons why the whole scheme continues to flourish.
In the final analysis, the global warming alarmists really have only one thing going for them; the melting of the arctic sea ice. I was watching a documentary on the sinking of the Titanic the other night, and guess what?
My plan to start up a new 'green' movement is here. Got $50 mil lying around? Let's do lunch!
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
An outstanding post Doc!
I gotta run but I have a comment or two to make later.
If the Zachbot works on Saturday the comments should start accumulating fairly soon.
I will say this Doc, The Climate Change Believers use the phrase 'last chance' as much as those reporting on the 0bama economy used the word 'unexpectedly'.
"If the Zachbot works on Saturday the comments should start accumulating fairly soon."
Oh, dang, I forgot to mention my new rule in AGW posts. Anyone whose name starts with 'Z' only gets one comment. So, make it a lengthy and meaningful one, Z-users.
This will not convince the AGW creationists...they are driven by progressive global governance and Malthusian end of world outlooks.
I like your use of the word 'creationists'. A religion, they are indeed.
Let us not forget Ted Danson's declaration/prediction that the oceans would be dead, Dead, DEAD in ten (1O) years, which I'm not finding a date for, but looks to be about mid-'80s.
Speaking of the 80's, here's a classic:
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand.
Which is why Wikipedia is not a good source for many controversial issues.
I once did a site search of how many times the term "climate change" came up on Wikipedia, and it was over 34,000 articles. Many of them were about animals, like how the prairie dog population was dwindling due to climate change, deforestation, man's encroachment, etc, with "climate change" always leading the pack. No bias here, friends!
I attended a seminar last year which discussed distribution of small mammals in Michigan. Over the last 30 years there has been a change in population distribution. Southern based mammals have moved north in the last 30 years. This from someone who has studied this stuff for 40 + years. So, there is something to it.
By Southern/Northern in the above I mean southern Michigan versus northern Michigan.
Though I would be loath to mix politics with science. I mentioned to the prof that gave the talk that Texas was a bit of a meeting ground on many levels. Southern w Mexican w Northern migrants. (Not to mention great species diversity in Big Thicket..) He replied something to the effect that Trump would be stopping that. I didn't want to get into a political discussion- I would have been outnumbered 50 to 1- but I thought to myself that this guy has spent the last 50 years in academia and no longer has a clue what things are like outside the academy.
Lower prairie dog population- that would mean that there would be fewer prairie dog holes for cattle to step in and break their ankles.
Assuming (this is a stretch to assume, but let's do it anyway) man IS the main 'cause' of warming, and CO2 IS the main impact gas, the nature of capitalism is to solve for issues of this nature.
Oh, and by the way? We're starting to:
Even the left-leaning Snopes refused to touch this report from a year ago:
Though these solutions are not entirely carbon-neutral, they are significantly more carbon neutral than any other means currently available (after all, the main carbon input in these solutions is electricity generation, which not surprisingly is used extensively in oil and other gas exploration and extraction - so technically it IS a very green solution, but you know these Greens - if it's not PERFECT, you can't have it).
My bet? It's not a problem (which you've effectively laid out) and even if it is, we're on the verge of solving for it and letting this whole issue die.
Between fracking and natural gas replacing coal, we've already reduced our CO2 output to 2005 levels, and it's still heading downwards. And all of it handled by the private sector, not via government regulation. Go, capitalism!
The problem I have with the AGW zealots is that they are so gullible. They believe those computer models. I'm an electrical engineer and we use a computer program named SPICE to model electronic circuits. However, engineers don't take the computer program results as gospel. I've had results that were incorrect numerous times. I used to do lots of computer programming and we joked, garbage in, gospel out. If the computer printed it out, people believed it.
Out at the coast on vacation, this morning I look to the marina across the road to see if the water had risen enough to float the docks off their mooring pilings.
Nope, still intact.
Evidence of shore erosion from the higher water levels?
A radio commentator was saying "Your Opinion is trumped by Facts." But in my world of observation of working outside as a farmer, why are Your "facts" disputed by what's happening around me?
Still waiting for the docks to float away......
It is really a nice and helpful piece of info. I am glad that you shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.
Thanks for the nice words. Actually -- just to pat myself on the back for a minute -- it took me about two months of diligent looking to find it. It actually came out in movie theaters, so different rules applied, compared to the average YouTube-type video. But, diligence is everything in this game, so find it, I did. And a nice high-quality version, to boot.
My next AGW post will also be a little different. This time, I'll let the other side have a say, such as:
- Those who believe that the real solution to global warming is to outlaw having babies. Bird Dog linked to a Guardian post on the subject a few days ago, but that barely scratched the surface.
- Those who believe that those ugly Deniers should be put in jail, since, after all, that's the core of the scientific method.
- Those who believe that NOAA and NASA adjusting climate data is simply a matter of facing reality and being economical.
A good time should be had by all.
Let's not forget that the climate models used by the Acolytes of the Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AlGore be praised), when fed the actual data up to 2015, can't predict the actual measured temperatures for 2016.
There was also some famous story I heard about ten years ago where they took all the known data from 1900, fed it into a computer, and it predicted the temp in the year 2000 would be six degrees hotter than it was. Human barbecue time!
Geoengineering and its consequences are not a hustle: