2018 – One Of The Least Extreme Weather Years On Record


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Link here. For the past half decade or so global warming activists both in and out of the climate science community have been pitching the idea, based on literally no evidence, that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would cause an increase in extreme weather events.

The article at the link illustrates how badly that prediction is turning out. In fact, it was clear five years ago that there was no trend visible in the amount of extreme weather events, and that lack of a trend has continued since.

The bottom line remains: The uncertainties in the field of climate science remain gigantic. Our knowledge of how the climate functions remains poor and somewhat limited. And any theory about the consequences of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere remains tentative and unproven, at best.

Good science is based on cold-hearted skepticism and a recognition of the uncertainties in our knowledge. To be a good scientist you have to strive for intellectual honesty every moment of your life.

For the past two decades the climate science community has decided to abandon these fundamentals, and pushed hard instead to confirm the theory that a trace gas in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide) can cause significant global warming. And they have pushed this theory regardless of the facts. Sometimes they have even pushed this theory despite the facts. Sometimes they have even changed the facts to conform to the theory.

This corruption of scientific principle has harmed the reputation of science badly, and made future work in this field difficult, because much of the data that exists now has been tampered with in ways that make much of it untrustworthy.

Worse, it appears that this is all a terrible indicator of the corruption of our entire society. Everywhere I look, intellectual honesty has been abandoned. Instead, we have become a society of unruly children, picking petty twitter fights based on minor details we pick and choose at our convenience in order to prove our point. Thoughtful consideration of all the facts has become abandoned. And if you try to encourage it, you are called names and blackballed.

Under these circumstances, I do not see a civilized way to recover our society. It seems that very bad times must happen first. Whether we can then recover our civilization afterward remains an open question.

Share

36 comments

  • Lee S

    This is a very multifaceted argument… But I find very little evidence that there is no link between CO2 and global warming…. The correlation is there, ( from ice cores and carbonationas rocks ), and the science ( regarding CO2 being a “greenhouse gas” )
    backs it up.
    How much this relates to current weather is certainly up for debate… I personally believe that a slightly higher CO2 atmospheric concentration could be just what we need to feed the 10 billion mouthes we will need to feed in 30 years….
    But the other side of the coin is…
    “Is it not better to do something now and avoid the possible, than do nothing and perhaps face the impossible?”

  • m d mill

    The good news:
    The nearly linear increase in CO2 since the 1960’s is in fact a global climate experiment in progress.
    This increase will continue for the next 30 to 50 years at least…there is no reasonable expectation it will end soon (it would in fact be a grievous if it did).
    But with the new temperature data gathered in the next 30 to 50 years we (with the climate scientists, alarmists and skeptics) will be able to discern if the “alarmist” trends and models are reasonably vindicated or reasonably disproved.
    With the advent of the UAH and RSS precise satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures globally , the temp data can no longer be fudged or misinterpreted significantly. And the long history of tidal gauge results will continue to be quite reliable, and will determine if sea level rise is, or is not accelerating over the next 30 to 50 years of CO2 increase.
    These results will be less and less disputable as these data become available over an additional 30 to 50 years of the experiment. Particularity the observationally based Energy Budget methods of Otto et al, and Lewis and Curry will be greatly enhanced as more time passes, and will probably become reasonably definitive. Let the sophisticated data analysis and modelling continue, even if biased and debatable…the science of climatology will advance. Let the skeptical questioning continue, regardless of the threats of the political fanatics.
    No extraordinary or irreversible damage will be done in that time that is not clearly evident well before “the time of the apocalypse”, even in the worst case (remember the earth has thrived at CO2 levels 5 times the current level).
    The truth will out and within the foreseeable future, if we remain open minded.
    Cheers!

  • Orion314

    Mr Z , re: For good science “You have to strive for intellectual honesty every moment of your life.” This is a hope completely incompatible with the political left, who seem to have the purse strings, therefor they dictate the tune science dances to…We are seeing the collapse of our political system due to corruption, because they seem to be untouchable. Hell , the SS just thwarted a coup d’etat against the jarheads in the White House. Another potential assassin DOA .Badtimes all around..

  • wodun

    @ Lee S

    But the other side of the coin is…
    “Is it not better to do something now and avoid the possible, than do nothing and perhaps face the impossible?”

    The certainty that doing “something” will avoid the possible is very much up for debate. When looking at specific proposals, there is little reason to think they will solve the problems that they claim will be solved. Here is the thing though. There is no imminent apocalypse. This is the best time to be alive in human history. I think a lot of the people pushing AGW alarmism are well aware that this isn’t about climate but about pre-existing political beliefs and that the future climate will change but be just fine for the planet. Knowledge that things will be fine for the climate is part of the scam because it allows the totalitarians to claim success even if there is zero evidence that their programs did anything.

    It is important to slow the roll on this mass hysteria because the outcome of many of these programs is going to be the subjugation of the collective human soul.

    Thoughtful consideration of all the facts has become abandoned. And if you try to encourage it, you are called names and blackballed.

    Has it ever not been this way? The history of science is littered with examples of blackballing and failure to consider facts while getting caught up in fads and fantasies. Much of the scientific method is meant to combat stuff like this because scientists are humans but guess what? They still are humans.

    We tend to look at history with nostalgia and romanticism but the reality is that we have always had contentious social differences and we always will because that is human nature. Nerd fights are especially vicious. Being smart doesn’t make one a better person and being a scientist isn’t joining a priesthood.

  • Edward

    Lee S wrote: “The correlation is there, ( from ice cores and carbonationas rocks ), and the science ( regarding CO2 being a “greenhouse gas” ) backs it up.

    Correlation is not causation. The science from the ice cores shows that warming precedes increases in CO2 and cooling precedes decreases in CO2, and that suggests actual causation, not assumed causation. It has been shown that CO2 caught in the ground and in tundra escapes into the atmosphere when the temperatures increase, which is one possible explanation for this observed phenomenon.

    “Is it not better to do something now and avoid the possible, than do nothing and perhaps face the impossible?”

    But if we do something without understanding the climate science, then how do we know that the thing we do is not making it more difficult or even impossible later? If the something that we do now is based upon political lies rather than the science that is known, then aren’t we even more likely to be doing the wrong thing? After all, the science is showing that warmer temperatures are generally bringing less extreme weather rather than the predicted or feared more.

    And which climate is the correct climate? Is it the climate of 2018, one of the least extreme weather years on record, or the climate of 1992, the base year for the Kyoto agreement? What about the Climate of the 1970s, after the temperature dropped enough to make climate scientists fear the coming ice age but before the temperature started climbing enough to make them concerned that more extreme weather will happen? Or maybe 1850? Or the middle of the Little Ice Age? Or during the Medieval Warm Period? Or maybe the middle of the previous glacial period of the Ice Age, which seems to be the most common climate, over the past few million years?

    I sure would hate to make the wrong decision on this one, because the favored solution is said to be very costly in taxes, regulation, and productivity and could damage future generations into facing an impossible situation forever.

    m d mill wrote: “With the advent of the UAH and RSS precise satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures globally , the temp data can no longer be fudged or misinterpreted significantly.

    Unless they recalibrate the satellites so that the data fits their pet theories. Then they are fudging the data. And even good data can be misinterpreted due to personal biases, such as confirmation bias?

    Wait, isn’t confirmation bias why they recalibrated the satellites in the first place?

  • m d mill

    The nice thing is that UAH and RSS are respectfully skeptical of each other, and check each other…which is a situation rarely found in the field. That is why I think (hope) “the temp data can no longer be fudged or misinterpreted significantly.” UAH use observation based corrections and are skeptical of models ,RSS use more model based corrections and trust the models. [Incidentally, I doubt there was any confirmation bias in the original UAH findings. A mistake was made in a string of very difficult corrections among many varied satellite types that no one had even attempted up to that point, and which took many years for anyone to find. There is no need to assume significant bias.]

    Of course there is no absolute objectivity (which should be so obvious it need not be specifically mentioned), but I feel very comfortable relying on the UAH, RSS temp data histories, which are very similar. Although, when Christy and Spencer leave the field then the situation could degrade.
    I hope they will have the power to see to their succession, so that this friendly competition may continue.

  • BSJ

    Right, except when it comes to whale hunting…

    You have yet to prove anyone is abusing their “special status” when it comes to indigenous groups hunting whales.

    Others abusing their own “special status” in unrelated instances is completely irrelevant in the discussion about whaling.

    Science is about proof. Not tenuous suppositions in the form of political statements.

  • Col Beausabre

    “a recognition of the uncertainties in our knowledge”

    As the great philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper, pointed out, all scientific knowledge is conditional. All it takes is one proven example of a negative result to disprove a theory. (and Sir Karl also points out, that for a theory to be scientific, it must be disprovable. I can have a theory about the number of angels on a pinhead, but since no one can disprove it, it’s metaphysics, not physics we’re talking about)

    As for knowledge being conditional, here’s an example. After many years of study, I announce “All crows are black”. After many attempts to disprove it fail, it goes into the literature as “Beausabre’s Law”. Until one day, someone comes up with an albino crow (he’ll have to prove it’s really a crow and not a related species) and the “Law” is no more.

    Someone once asked Einstein what he thought about the book, “One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein” and he replied “One would be enough” – if that person could disprove his work

  • Lee S

    @ Edward….. I grant you almost all the points you make, but I will argue that the climate we should try and maintain is the climate we have right now….
    An ice age or 4 or 5c warming would no doubt be catastrophic for mankind… ( Although life would carry on, just perhaps without us…)
    As I stated, I’m in 2 minds regarding our effect on the climate… But I really tend to lean towards the opinion that it can’t be a bad thing to cut reliance on fossil fuels and steer our economy towards renewable and clean power…
    Unless we manage to cover the deserts with solar panels and make wind power more viable ( the costs involved commissioning and decommissioning wind turbines are eye opening!) We should also include nuclear in the mix… There are any number of perfectly safe and reasonably cheap designs out there, with very low waste, but zero political will to make the plans reality ( both here in Europe and abroad)
    I don’t actually know exactly what point I’m trying to make…. Lol! , But my gut tells me that erring on the side of caution when it comes to global warming cannot be a bad thing, even if the doom mongers are wrong!

  • Jim Davis

    Under these circumstances, I do not see a civilized way to recover our society. It seems that very bad times must happen first.

    Bob, you have to be careful with statements like these. I assume that you are only voicing your fears but the ungenerous can read this as a call for uncivilized behavior.

  • Jim Davis: Maybe, but I will not allow what others (eager to misinterpret what I say to do me harm) censor my writing. Never. I do that, and I bow to bullies. And I will always refuse to do that.

  • Cotour

    “@ Edward….. I grant you almost all the points you make, but I will argue that the climate we should try and maintain is the climate we have right now….”

    I do not believe that it has been established that anything that humans do or do not do related to the atmosphere and CO2 has an effect on the climate or average temperature on earth one way or the other. Other than maybe the effects that masses of concrete and asphalt have on a local city temperature trends.

    It sounds reasonable that if humans through their activities raise the level of CO2 into the atmosphere that the temperature will increase. But it just sounds reasonable, the climate and the temperature on earth is what it is and I do not believe it reasonable to think that we can “control” it as you suggest. CO2 has been much higher in the past and there have been ice ages, lower sea levels, higher sea levels, higher temperatures and lower temperatures, and it all happened in spite of any human existing or not existing.

    You want to talk about reducing pollution / poisons / plastics in its many forms in the atmosphere, on land and in the sea as a general goal? Then you have a reasonable powerful argument related things that humans can do to improve living conditions on the earth. I am 100 percent behind you then.

    The data supports a trend and the trend is that the earth will in time, sooner rather than later, no matter what any human is able to do to counter it, will be getting cooler. And at that point, where will the specific “Global warming” terminology that has conveniently morphed into the much more generalized “Climate change” terminology be then? What argument will these political operatives of the Left use then?

    And will you be then ready willing and able to swallow their new semantic argument to control everything and all who inhabit the earth?

  • Cotour

    Jim Davis:

    There is not a call for “Uncivil” behavior, there is an observation about what may ensue because of the political atmosphere that has been fostered on our country today.

    Two very different things.

  • wayne

    Jim Davis–
    I don’t need to be incited to rise up against the tyranny being imposed on me.

    David Byrne –
    “Life During Wartime”
    [Live from Austin, TX. 2017]
    https://youtu.be/EXN5r1viSFY
    6:36

  • Lee S

    @ Cotour,
    I was with you all the way until you bought in “the left”.
    As I have argued many times on here “the left” as a phrase is disingenuous and actually closes down discussion..
    It is quite possible to be left wing in politics and want nothing to do with what Bob rightly calls out as the fasist snowflake movement.. But by brushing anyone with anything but conservative views as “the left” consigns a huge percentage of the people to the mental trash bin….
    I am left… (IE. Socialist leaning ) in my politics, I am also pro freedom of speech and would die for my democratic right for that freedom of speech.
    All that said.. I still think cutting down carbon emissions would not be a bad idea.

  • wayne

    “How a Totalitarian State is Actually Formed”
    Jocko Podcast & Jordan B Peterson March 2018
    https://youtu.be/T_ijsSoNP2U
    7:31

  • Cotour

    Jim Davis: You can choose to recognize your fellow “socialist” or “Left leaning” fellows strategies of manipulation or not, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

    Argue for the cleaning up of industry and pollution in general and we are on the same page, but when you refuse to recognize the facts of the politics that are in play, what do you call that?

    Do you propose that you agree with my observations and conclusions about “Climate change”, but upon my introducing the facts of the politics and semantics involved you then reject my observations and conclusions?

    Now THAT would be quite irrational and punitive, ignoring the rational facts in favor of a political position. But it would make perfect sense given your stated political affiliation.

  • Cotour

    Correction: My last post was to Lee S., not Jim Davis.

  • Jim Davis

    There is not a call for “Uncivil” behavior, there is an observation about what may ensue because of the political atmosphere that has been fostered on our country today.

    It’s not that simple.

    Suppose someone were to say for example: “This country would be better off if Trump were dead.”

    Some might take that statement as a simple opinion of the merits of the Trump presidency. Others might take it as advocating Trump’s assassination. People will assess words and implications differently. It is best to be aware of this.

  • Jim Davis

    I don’t need to be incited to rise up against the tyranny being imposed on me.

    This is fascinating. Please share some examples of how you rose up against the tyranny imposed on you.

  • Cotour

    It is exactly that simple.

    Your off the rails now, what was said and what could have been said that you propose are two very different things. You can go anywhere you choose to go with that argument.

    This what WAS said:

    “Under these circumstances, I do not see a civilized way to recover our society. It seems that very bad times must happen first.”

    A reasonable opinion based on the rhetoric that is being thrown around in the media and by our own empowered politicians, although a bit dark. And now you are on a track to threaten the president? Which was not even intimated in the post, just the potential for social / civil unrest.

    Off the rails, crash and burn.

  • Lee S

    Cotour,
    You missunderstand me…
    Because I am left leaning in my politics does not mean that I am wedded to the extream left, any more than your right leaning politics mean you are some neo conservative nazi…
    Where did the middle ground go?
    I am in favour of being environmentally conscious, cleaning up our act as a species, and perhaps concidering a carbon neutral future as a good idea… All within a workable political frame.
    “The left” is as redundant a phrase as “the right”…. Politics is ( thank god!) Much more complicated than that.
    I am left leaning in my politics… I believe in social responsibility to a nations poorest, support for a nations workers and policies which support the average Joe above the richest earners …
    Call me pinko commie all you like… But there over the pond, I really believe you could do with at least a little left wing thinking without loosing your hats…
    With love and peace!

  • Cotour

    “I believe in social responsibility to a nations poorest, support for a nations workers and policies which support the average Joe above the richest earners …”

    Not really an irrational position to take, BUT.

    Everyone is fundamentally Conservative, Liberal and even Leftist thought and action are post primary Conservative thought and action and are luxury thought and action.

    Conservatism is primary and Liberal thought and action flows through it and is a result of it and does not ever exist as primary or fundamental.

    You might say: “Im fiscally Conservative, but socially Liberal”. Correct? A common explanation and justification for confused and disconnected thought process.

    Every human that has every drawn breath is primarily Conservative and Liberal thought and action is always secondary and a luxury.

  • Max

    Speaking of tyranny, a 70% tax rate was just proposed.

    I think everyone out there knows that if we are going to save the planet, we have to act and act NOW! The debate is over, Obama and the pope says that the science is settled. Global warming deniers will no longer get “Air time” or be allowed to post on the Internet. Whistleblowers will not be tolerated. All science discoveries and algorithm results will be determined by committee, a consensus of the smartest, most powerful political scientist with degrees of highest learning. You will pay a carbon tax, or you will not eat or have heat. If you do not comply, your oxygen intake will be limited… you will be assimilated. The earth is in the balance.
    It is imperative that we lower our carbon footprint by rationing all carbon intake. Everyone knows they must do their part to prevent global warming which will cause renaissance and women in bikinis…
    You will be required to work, according to their ability and will receive necessities according to their need… To be determined by your Google Gulag section leader and how many “likes” you have.

    Sorry, I’m in a sarcastic mood.

    The other side to carbon dioxide story is a feedback mechanism known as life… Why doesn’t this planet have an atmosphere like Venus or Mars? Life. Just like a rain swollen river will cause the level of a lake to rise, the outflow eventually will equal the inflow forming a new balance according to the conditions.
    Carbon dioxide is plant food. Satellite data has indicated that the earth is getting greener. Existing plants are getting larger, and new plants are spreading where there was none before. A balance will eventually be achieved that the plants are consuming all available carbon dioxide, but with all cycles, it will be unsustainable as carbon hungry plants extract too much, and the carbon dioxide levels will drop, plant life will again die back. (Watch Cotour’s link)
    Unlike a desert, plants retain water and add humidity to the air which by far has a major influence on weather conditions and climate.
    No matter what the brilliant high IQ politicians say, there is no reason to panic and give them all your money. Everything will be OK.

    The worst thing that could happen is Planes loaded with sulfur being dumped in our atmosphere to cause “anthropogenic global cooling”… A man made ice age!
    Yeah, that sounds like good science. What could go wrong? We got to do something, even if it’s the wrong thing. If it doesn’t work out at least we knew we had “good intentions”.
    For every one thing that could happen with global warming, there are10 bad things that will happen with global cooling. History has shown this to be true. Starvation, disease, the failure of civilization. Perhaps the elite are counting on this and are expecting a pristine world when they emerge from their underground bunkers.
    I think I’ve been watching too many “end of the world movies”, there sure are a lot of them in the last 20 years.

    A quick note about melting permafrost causing a surge of methane in the Arctic. Having lived on the tundra, the scenario is not likely. First of all, the extreme cold weather kills most bacteria. (only anaerobic bacteria can make methane)
    Second, the peat moss is thick under the tundra, but it is frozen and has almost no sugar content. (food/heat potential) If you have a potted plant in your home, you know it takes years in warm, moist, fertilized conditions to break it down.
    Third, the growing plants above the few inches of unfrozen peat will absorb the carbon dioxide that methane turns into on contact with oxygen. The slow release is nearly 100% consumed by the starving life at the surface in a rush to grow before winter comes back. (levels of carbon dioxide goes down in the Arctic summer, except during solar storms)
    Again, the imagination of the model makers does not match reality. No need to kill the butterflies to prevent massive hurricanes…

  • Lee S

    Oh my…. I only intended to propose a viable “left wing” idea… I didn’t intend to let loose a maniac… Sorry!

  • Lee S

    But… Max…

    Consider… You are right… Nothing remarkable happens…

    Consider you are wrong… Millions of miles of coastline fall to the ocean…. And your sitting in the middle of the US … In the middle of fire and drought…

    Just saying..

  • Edward

    Lee S wrote: “I really tend to lean towards the opinion that it can’t be a bad thing to cut reliance on fossil fuels and steer our economy towards renewable and clean power

    One way that it can be a bad thing is if we cause economic trouble by forcing renewable and clean power on ourselves before they are ready, meaning economically better than fossil fuels.

    Thus, if Lee S is right, we prevent millions of miles of coastline from falling to the ocean (meaning that man thinks he finally has control over mother nature, the reason the Titanic sank), but if he is wrong, we have economic turmoil and devolve into third world nations that are so struggling that they allow massive pollution, as is happening in Russia, China, Mexico, and other places. Such economic turmoil may present other problems, such as an increase in wars as we struggle for resources once again. So much for forward motion.

    Of course, we hadn’t lost all that coastline during the pre-Little Ice Age’s Medieval Warm Period, so maybe the coasts aren’t in as much danger as advertised and we are falling for chicken little warnings, just like the warning about increased extreme weather.

  • pzatchok

    I love the oceans are rising crowd.

    They assume humans will just stand there and let the water drown them. Well a few of the global warming proponents will just to prove a point.
    The vast majority will move.

    The more water in the oceans means there will be a vastly larger surface area which will promote evaporation into the atmosphere causing increased rainfall all over the place and thus increased plant growth which will then sequester the Co2 into those very same plants.

    Plus it would become warmer in what is now the tundra and thus far more inhabitable. Canada and Siberia here I come.

    But if we accidentally cause a global freeze and subsequent ice age we would have less available water and the land not covered in ice would become at best grass land and or worse a desert.

    I don’t want either option to happen but of the two…….I am not too worried. We are overdue for an ice age so lets keep it warm for now.

  • Cotour

    Lee S:

    I really did not expect you to comprehend my point about the fundamental difference between Conservatism and the mistaken thinking that Liberalism stands on its own and apart from Conservatism.

    You and your fellow travelers are so well immersed in your life fantasy and comforts that you believe they are a direct result of your mistaken Liberal thinking. They are not.

    “Peace and Love” brother, Peace and Love all day long.

    BUT, “First we eat, then civilization”.

  • wayne

    Star Trek Original
    The Way to Eden
    https://youtu.be/-pNQYHvhnms
    2:39

  • wayne

    The Beatles
    “Revolution”
    (Kinetic Typography)
    https://youtu.be/DJQtozWKCyg
    3:00

  • Max

    Why does the Earth have a greenhouse effect in all of the climate models? Because they do not have a credible alternative.
    https://twin.sci-hub.se/41142a4e95d5171cd2d8063c4bc7404e/blaauw2017.pdf
    The numbers don’t add up, and magic is not an option. Sun is responsible for 10% of our heat. (The difference between day and night) Think about it and let me know if you figure out the solution.

    To quote the Z man;
    “For the past two decades the climate science community has decided to abandon these fundamentals, and pushed hard instead to confirm the theory that a trace gas in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide) can cause significant global warming. And they have pushed this theory regardless of the facts.”

    “” 4/ 100th of 1% “”
    Shortwave radiation at 700 nm and outgoing long wave radiation (that overlaps with water vapor/clouds) have one chance in 2,500 of finding a carbon dioxide molecule! Then this trace gas will use this little bit of heat to warm the entire planet?
    An old saying, “A sucker is born every minute”, and a cattle herd feels very comfortable and safe running together even if the running is toward a cliff. If everyone believes it, it must be true…

    The only conclusion I can come to is that it is not a science problem, it is a political one. The old methods of “power take over” by elite ruthless gangsters controlling mobs blaming upper class for everything that is wrong in their lives, (which worked in Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, France) where the people killed, or enslaved all landowners and the ruling class by the millions will not work in America… Americans are the ruling class! So a new strategy to convince free people to enslave them selves, to give up your rights for something bigger than us, like saving the earth, despite the lack of evidence or strong evidence to the contrary. It’s a matter of “religious conviction or belief” because faith is so much stronger than science fact.
    They do not need to convince everyone, once they achieve 50% of the population, they can use democracy to enslave the rest. It will happen… Because it’s our human nature. Look at how many times it has already happened just in this last century… What more proof do you need? How many more millions must die before we learn something?

    Z man said;
    “Under these circumstances, I do not see a civilized way to recover our society. It seems that very bad times must happen first.”

    Once a ruthless power structure has been established, it will not step down, or step back without a fight. (as you have seen, they fight dirty) No one gives up power willingly.
    It is unfortunate that when power does fall, it’s usually to a more ruthless Regime. If we do not kneel and join the “New World order” ruled from the Hague (with no more borders) then it will be the entrenched and well funded deep state, with imprisonment (execution squads) for the “wrong” thinkers who will be branded the “deniers and traitors”.
    You will not be able to defend yourself, because they will have all the appropriate falsified documents that prove they are justified. If you doubt me, you only need to look in our recent past of the hundreds of millions that found them selves on the wrong side of a barrel of a gun.
    History has, and will always repeat it self.
    Sorry to be so depressing…

  • Edward

    pzatchok wrote: “I love the oceans are rising crowd.

    So do I. Some of them even own beachfront property, which means two things: 1) they should be worried about rising oceans, because their houses will flood and their property will be under water, and 2) they don’t think that the oceans will rise any time soon, otherwise they would sell now while the property still has value.

    I also like is the “do something” doom mongers crowd, even if the doom is increased extreme weather, especially when the something to be done is lower our carbon footprint. (At the U.S. National Parks we are supposed to take only pictures and leave only footprints, so how bad can our carbon footprint be?)

    This crowd continues to use powered transportation, all of which increases the use of fossil fuels, even if it is to provide for the power used that exceeds the renewable and clean power that is generated. They use power in their homes and workplaces, again requiring fossil fuels for the power that exceeds the renewable and clean power generation. They buy food, goods, and services that required power for production. Even the policy makers have allowed entire nations to continue to increase their fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide output with the Kyoto and Paris agreements — and those policy makers tend to have lifestyles that use the most power for transportation, homes, and work (being so much more important than we peons).

    The “do something” crowd does surprisingly little to reduce the world’s carbon footprint, meaning that they do not really believe in the doomsday/rising seas/increased extreme weather scenario(s). Instead, they just seem to desire punishments for the successful countries and rewards for favored countries.

    So the actions of the anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) crowd show that they secretly deny any severe AGW consequences. They act like skeptics. Meanwhile, they love to call “denier” to those who acknowledge the skepticism that they, the AGW crowd, act upon.

  • wayne

    Dr. Robert Murphy
    “The Dubious Economics of Climate Change”
    Mises Institute
    12-7-18
    https://youtu.be/IfGySQ8qHZU
    32:37

    “Climate Change (née Global Warming) is based on three premises: the earth’s atmosphere is warming; humans are responsible for that warming; and warming is inherently bad. But even if we accept these premises, what economic trade-offs are warranted in response? No more air conditioning or private automobiles? Heavy carbon taxes? Outlawing relatively cheap fossil fuels and mandating expensive renewable sources? Slower economic growth in the developing world? One child policies? Dr. Robert Murphy (Mises.org/Murphy) joins Jeff Deist to discuss how the political landscape and media narratives fail to consider obvious choices and trade-offs inherent in the climate change debate.”

  • wayne

    “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
    -Galileo Galilei

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *